Convinced the country’s rising debt has reached critical levels, U.S. Sen. Mark Udall said he’s considering voting against a temporary increase in the federal spending limit necessary to keep the government running past New Year’s.
Given the Democrats’ razor-thin margin in the Senate, a ‘no’ vote by Udall would put in jeopardy a delicate agreement with the U.S. House of Representatives, which last week voted to raise the debt ceiling by nearly $300 billion, enough to keep the government functioning until February.
Udall is one of just two remaining Democratic holdouts in the Senate, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner personally called him Friday to explain the serious ramifications if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.
Among them, the federal government wouldn’t have the money to issue Social Security checks or pay interest on its debt.
“I told him that I couldn’t commit to him today to vote for the debt-ceiling increase. We agreed to continue to speak and that’s where we left it,” Udall said.
“If you take that attitude that every time we get in this position that we’ll kick the can down the road, then we never get a concrete set of steps to deal with it,” Udall said.
The stand is unusual for a lawmaker who often touts his ability to find compromise, and it underscores divisions among Democrats as the country’s debt reaches historic levels.
Democrats in the House had hoped to vote on a provision that would have raised the country’s $12.1 trillion debt ceiling by an additional $1.8 trillion, enough to get past the election next November.
House leaders hoped to get the issue out of the way now rather than face a difficult vote during an election year, but moderate Democrats in the Senate balked.
The smaller, $300 billion increase will require a vote on another, much larger increase in February, but Udall and others see that as an opportunity to put in place safeguards that can rein in Congress’ spendy ways.
One possibility is a bipartisan commission that can recommend budget cutbacks to Congress, which then must approve them in an up-or-down vote.
Another is so-called pay-go legislation, requiring Congress to pay for new spending with taxes or cuts.
Given that both are unpopular with Congress’ powerful appropriators, a key question is whether the administration will agree to back either — or both.
Geithner was unwilling to be that specific, and Udall told the treasury secretary that until he receives more concrete assurances, he won’t vote for the bill. He might have occasion to do so as soon as Thursday.
“I want more details, and I want a solid set of promises that can be delivered upon — not just promises verbally, but promises in a concrete and clear way,” Udall said.
