Less than 10 days before the current fiscal year ends, Congress has not approved any appropriations bills for fiscal year 2012. Yet again, continuing funding resolutions are needed to prevent the federal government from shutting down after September 30. Yesterday Representative Tom Latham was the only Iowan to vote yes as the U.S. House failed to approve a continuing resolution backed by Republican leaders.

The continuing resolution would have funded the federal government through November 18. It failed on a 195 to 230 vote (roll call). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted against it, as did most of the Democratic caucus. Meanwhile, Steve King (IA-05) was among 48 Republicans to reject the resolution because it did not cut federal spending enough. Latham (IA-04) was one of the 189 Republicans who voted for the resolution. He chairs an appropriations subcommittee and is a close friend of House Speaker John Boehner.

Russell Berman and Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Hill,

The defeat hands leverage to congressional Democrats in a dispute over federal disaster funding. Democratic leaders objected to a GOP provision cutting funding from a Department of Energy manufacturing loan program to offset additional money for disaster relief. […]

The defeat was a stinging loss for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who pitched the measure to his conference as the lowest spending number they could get. […]

Boehner had tried, unsuccessfully, to rally Republicans behind the bill earlier in the day, warning them in a closed-door conference meeting that the level of spending was likely only to increase if their legislation failed. […]

The House was already on a collision course with the Senate over the level of funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The House bill included $3.65 billion for FEMA, with about $1 billion of that money offset by a cut to an energy program supporting loans for the production of fuel-efficient cars. The Senate had already approved $6.9 billion in disaster relief, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had vowed to try to amend the House bill to match that level.

Most of the House Republicans who voted against the latest continuing resolution had no problem supporting tax cuts or war spending that wasn’t “paid for” by cutting other government programs. It’s amazing that they want to pick a fight over disaster aid, especially since large areas in Steve King’s district were devastated by Missouri River flooding this summer.

I haven’t seen any public comments from the Iowans in Congress on yesterday’s vote, but I will update this post with further developments.

Incidentally, presidential candidates Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann were both absent from the House yesterday. The third House Republican who is running for president, Thad McCotter, voted for the continuing spending resolution.

The House may consider a new continuing resolution as early as today, or representatives may have to vote on new legislation this weekend. If the dispute drags into next week, work on the continuing resolution may disrupt Latham’s plans to hold town-hall meetings in five counties between September 26 and 29. Three of those meetings (in Warren, Dallas and Madison counties) are in the new third Congressional district, where Latham will run for re-election against Boswell in 2012.

Speaking of the federal budget, the Iowa Democrats in Congress mostly welcomed President Barack Obama’s latest deficit-cutting proposals, announced on September 19. Republicans criticized the proposed tax increases for wealthy Americans and called for deeper spending cuts. I enclose excerpts from their official comments; full texts are here.

Senator Tom Harkin:

I was encouraged by the President’s address to Congress and his attention to the jobs deficit in this country. […]

The fact that he took steps to address school modernization and teacher jobs as well as include funding for transportation improvements is important for middle class job creation. Of course, asking the most affluent to pay their fair share in taxes is crucial.

Senator Chuck Grassley:

The proposal is full of gimmicks, including the fact that no one expects the current level of war spending to continue, but the President claims $1.1 trillion in savings from the drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“How can you claim savings when the money’s not in the budget, and was never expected to be spent? Overall, the problem with the President’s proposal is that if figures we have a taxing problem rather than a spending problem and, remarkably, it doesn’t really tackle spending at all. Government spending is ramping up to 25 percent of the total economy, an all-time high.

“Instead of growing government, we need to be growing the private sector, where jobs and wealth are created. We don’t need higher taxes; we need more taxpayers through economic growth.

Braley:

Following the advice of Warren Buffet and having America’s millionaires and billionaires pay a share of taxes more in line with what nurses and teachers pay is the right thing to do for our economic recovery. Creating jobs while reducing our nation’s debt requires tough choices, but making sure middle class Iowans aren’t penalized for being in the middle class shouldn’t be one of them. When I held town hall meetings in my district earlier this year, Iowans from all backgrounds and parties agreed that the current tax structure is unfair and must be addressed. I will continue to work for these changes.

Loebsack:

I applaud the President for laying out a grand proposal to reduce the deficit, which I have long been calling for, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that families and businesses have been hurting because of the economic downturn for far too long. I am eager to have a chance to read through the details and am hopeful people won’t dismiss it in typical DC fashion just because they don’t agree with every single point. I am sure when I read through it there will be things I would have done differently, but the economy is struggling and there needs to be action.

Boswell:

I am pleased the President is pushing forward with his proposal to reduce the deficit and get more Americans back to work. These are challenging times and I hope Congress can work with this proposal and find common ground in order to pass real reforms. The budget problems should not be solved on the backs of America’s seniors and middle class. We all need to share in the responsibility.

Latham:

A long-term economic recovery cannot even begin to take root until Washington ends the spending binges that have sent our national debt spiraling out of control the last few years. At a time when Americans believe that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every dollar it spends, as reported in a recent Gallup poll, how can the common-sense solution to this crisis be to take more from the American people for Washington to spend?

“Experts agree that raising taxes in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression will only prolong the economic doubt and insecurity plaguing the American family, worker, small business and farm. Even President Obama correctly said in 2009 that ‘don’t raise taxes in a recession.’ This proposal for massive tax hikes is counterproductive and continues to feed the spending addiction that got us into this mess.

King:

The president’s latest proposal to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion on America’s job creators has very little chance of becoming law, and he has punted on the debt and deficit issues. Americans deserve a real strategy to tackle our debt crisis and it appears we will not get one until the clock runs out on the Obama administration.

I haven’t seen any comments from the Iowans in Congress about Obama’s specific approach to cutting agriculture subsidies. Philip Brasher reported for the Des Moines Register,

The government made $4.8 billion in direct payments to farmers and landowners in 2010, plus an additional $3.4 billion through programs that conserve land or subsidize the cost of farm measures that reduce pollution or save water. Iowans received $473 million in direct payments, the most of any state, followed by Illinois with $419 million and Texas with $389 million.

The fixed direct payments that Obama wants to eliminate have come under increased criticism as commodity prices have skyrocketed in recent years. Farmers and landowners receive the same amount of money each year, no matter how well or how poorly their operations are doing. […]

The proposed cuts to direct payments, crop insurance and conservation would total more than $40 billion over a decade, but the net savings to taxpayers would be smaller, about $33 billion, because the administration also proposed to extend a disaster assistance program that was set to expire.

The White House said the direct payments are no longer justified. The payments currently total almost $5 billion a year, but the proposal for eliminating them would save taxpayers just $3 billion a year. Some of the money that now goes into the payments would be used for other forms of subsidies.

“Taxpayers continue to foot the bill for these payments to farmers who are experiencing record yields and prices; more than 50 percent of direct payments go to farmers with more than $100,000 in income,” according to the White House.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.