Rep. Martha Roby, R-Montgomery, took to Facebook Wednesday to respond to constituents who are expressing frustration and discontent with the Ryan-Murray budget deal that passed both the House and Senate in recent days.
Alabama’s representatives in the U.S. House voted in favor of the deal 5-1, with Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Huntsville, casting the only dissenting vote. However, in the upper chamber, both Sens. Shelby and Sessions voted against the deal.
Shelby tends to vote against any piece of legislation that violates the Budget Control Act of 2011, which capped 2014 discretionary spending at $967 billion. The Ryan-Murray budget smashes through that cap.
Sessions’ opposition to the bill centered around its cuts to veterans benefits. Sessions tried to attach an amendment to the bill to “fix” the benefits, but Democrats refused to allow it.
Conservative groups in Washington and around the country have been extremely critical of the deal by pointing out that it does little to set the country on a path to fiscal sanity, especially when it comes to entitlements.
Republicans who voted in favor of the deal say they believe Republicans stand the best chance of winning in the longterm by taking a potential government shutdown off the table and keeping the focus on ObamaCare’s failures.
Rep. Roby addresses several of those points in her Facebook post, which can be read in full below.
I have heard from several who are displeased with the recent budget agreement, particularly as it concerns cost of living increases for military retirees.
This measure represents the first time that Washington has operated with a budget during divided government in 27 years. The legislation sets overall discretionary spending levels at $1.012 trillion, returning non-defense spending to Bush-era levels and restoring some, but not all, military funding cut by sequestration. One of the offsets used in the bill to find savings involved reducing by 1% the annual automatic cost-of-living increases given to working-age military retirees starting in 2015. That means those who have retired from the service but are between the ages of 40-62 will still get a cost of living increase, it will just be one percent less. Once you turn 62, the increases go back up to their original rate.
It is important to note that the plan in no way affects the base pension payment, veterans’ disability benefits, or the benefits of any retiree over the age of 62.
I don’t blame those who are upset about this. The plan is far from ideal. I would much prefer more of the savings come from elsewhere, including long-overdue mandatory spending reforms. I understand that people count on these cost of living increases, even if they are still working.
The fact is the agreement restores more than $30 billion in sequestration cuts to the military. That is very significant. That funding goes straight toward preventing furloughs and restoring our military readiness. The alternative would mean more furloughs, more corrosion of our military readiness, and new threats of a harmful government shutdown. My choice was not an easy one to make, but I believe in the long run that it was the right choice given the alternative.
So what do you think? Was it smart for Republicans to go along with this deal, or should they have fought for more?
Follow Cliff on Twitter @Cliff_Sims
Don’t miss out! Subscribe today to have Alabama’s leading headlines delivered to your inbox.