ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — As Congress struggled to act before a potential U.S. debt default, Minnesota's politically split delegation showcased the range of opinion in Washington, from Democrats pushing for a longer-term debt limit increase to Republicans focused on containing spending.
Republican Rep. Chip Cravaack, the state's newest member of Congress, was one of the conservative House freshmen who helped derail GOP Speaker John Boehner's debt-ceiling proposal before a scheduled vote Thursday. Some Republicans were concerned it didn't cut spending aggressively enough. Spokesman Michael Bars confirmed Friday that Cravaack opposed that version of the Boehner plan and remained undecided on an altered version being pushed toward a Friday vote.
"We have to solve the problem of spending," Cravaack told WCCO-AM Radio on Thursday. "And unless — I understand about raising the debt ceiling, I get it — but at the same time unless we also have a cure to this disease, I mean, all we're doing is basically facilitating it."
Without congressional action, the federal government may not be able to pay all its bills after Tuesday.
Minnesota Democrats including Sen. Amy Klobuchar are pushing for a longer-lasting hike in U.S. borrowing authority to avoid another political impasse before the 2012 presidential election. Klobuchar said Friday that she expects negotiations to yield a bipartisan compromise that might not need the votes of tea party conservatives or some liberals to pass. She said there are enough common points between opposing plans pushed by Boehner and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to find a way out of the standoff, which has dragged on for months.
"The most important thing is that people want to get this done, the American people," Klobuchar said in an interview Friday. "They want us to get together and put politics aside and do what we're elected to do."
Cravaack, who represents northern Minnesota's 8th District, is aligning with Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, the 6th District representative leading opposition to the debt limit increase from the presidential campaign trail. The state's two other GOP House members, Reps. John Kline and Erik Paulsen, have backed the increase paired with spending cuts.
"I can't support any plan that begins with the assumption that we have to raise the debt limit and yet doesn't offer a fundamental restructuring of government spending habits. I won't do it," Bachmann said in a speech to the National Press Club on Thursday.
Other Minnesota Democrats in Congress emphasized the need to avoid a federal default and protect the U.S. government's top credit rating. Earlier in the week, Sen. Al Franken circulated a list of federal spending by county and warned of "economic disaster." He said a default could raise interest rates on credit cards and mortgages and lead to higher prices for utilities, food and fuel.
A spokeswoman for Rep. Tim Walz, who represents southern Minnesota's 1st District, said failure to act would lead to "unprecedented and completely avoidable harm to our still recovering economy."
Rep. Keith Ellison's campaign spokesman warned of the consequences of a default in a fundraising message on Friday.
"If we do default, working families will feel even greater economic pain," it said.
Boehner's plan would increase the debt limit by $900 billion and cut spending by $917 billion. Friday's version added a constitutional balanced-budget amendment that would go to the states for ratification.
Reid's Senate proposal would reduce spending by $2.2 trillion and raise borrowing authority by $2.7 trillion, enough to last until 2013.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.



Comments (17)
Add commentWasn't a Cravaak supporter until today
Go Chip - stand strong - finally have a congressman who actually represents us and is willing to the tough work.
In order to prevent a tax
In order to prevent a tax increase on the wealthy the GOP is going to force a HUGE tax increase on all of us.
Really Fish?
And exactly how much is that tax increase, show us your data that supports that claim. I would be willing to bet YOU won't see one dime of tax increase.
This is all about the 2012
This is all about the 2012 election and the country be damned.
Despite their recent outcry about the importance of predictability on our markets the GOP wants to create uncertainty AGAIN by forcing this issue to resurface right before the election.
Is there any level that they won't stoop to in order to win an election? I don't think there is.
Both parties are guilty of putting their party ahead of us. We need mass firings to get their attention and we really NEED 100% public financing of elections.
so
Will Chip and Michele vote on the re-vamped bill if the Senate passes it?
Will Joe Walsh pay his child support?
Will Wu resign?
Such a soap opera in DC. We don't deserve such fools. (not all of them, but lately, it seems like more and more)
Joe Walsh - Tea Party Poster Child
I saw this on the news last night. The guy lost his house to foreclosure and he did not pay child support for a decade. He owes back payments of close to $ 100,000. ???
THIS is who is leading the charge on 'fiscal policy' in DC for the tea party folks?
That is truly scary. I saw him saying that Aug. 2nd was a hoax.
You gotta love the libs misdirection play.
Let's see Obama's plan, on paper, not the telepromter. Oh, I'm sorry Obama and the Dems haven't put forth a budget plan for 800 days.
Um, I think Obama had a plan
before he caved to the GOP - that was to let the Bush tax cuts expire - 10 years and the 'job creators' have not created jobs, they have moved them overseas, those Patriots.
All the major economists say it will have to be cuts and revenue to get us out of this hole. Lots of this Obama inherited, those 2 unfunded wars and Medicare Part D was unfunded and allowed no competition - to name a few problem sink holes.
Under 'normal' circumstances a stimulus package helps pull the economy back from a recession. While some (GM, etc.) survived because of it, it did not create jobs in the long run. It still pulled us back from a depression, in the opinion of economists who know a lot more than I do.
Nice try Snowda,
that wasn't a plan, that was the kiss of death to the economy if those tax reductions went away. And while you are quick to blame Bush for Obama's problems just remember that the current deficit doesn't factor in the 4 trillion dollar boondoggle that is Obamacare.
llr et al: health care expenses.
The expenses will not start in large part until 2012 and later, unlike those pesky and ubiquitous tax cuts which seem to be an irritant to you, when you are reminded of them.
minnesnowda: Wouldn't you just die of shock if the right admitted the tax deductions didn't create jobs from those "job creators"?
Obama Cares
I recently talked to a friend who works at a HUGE health care company, one of the largest in the country. They LOVE Obama Cares. They are going to create buying pools and get more clients. Premise being that now they insure older, sicker clients and they await offering insurance to younger people, who by the way STILL get in accidents and get sick.
Personally, I really like it that they cannot deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions and we can keep kids under 26 on our policy. I don't think anyone wants those to 'go away.'
I will just laugh when the GOP wants funding in 2012 from this large health care company (that is working closely with Senator Franken right now) while the GOP plans to eliminate OBAMA CARES - which this company is making it's cornerstone right now.
lakelander
All that happened the last 10 years is the poor got poorer, the middle class lost major ground and the rich got richer.
That kind of trickle down is not working real well for many of us.
Don't the insurance companies have to pay out
so much of the premiums BACK to the clients? I did not research that - but I think there's a new rule that they can only keep a certain % of the profits now.........
We all hope that the excessively paid (can you say 'stock options?') CEO's are losing access to their cash cow. I am not opposed to corporations earling a living, but denying coverage to sick patients while CEO's get filthy rich needs to end.
premiums
"Beginning this year, insurance companies must report how they spend money from premiums. Companies in the individual and small-group markets will be required to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on medical care and quality improvement. Insurers in the large-group market must use 85 percent of premiums for these purposes."
Currently 25% of insurers are insured by companies who pay 25% in administrative costs out of the premiums collected. That is why executives have a huge source for bonuses and salary. That is why insurance salesmen will get smaller commissions under the new requirements. I think many small businesses would like to see this amount available for the owners' needs.
http://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/jan11medicallossratio.aspx
If I didn't know better I
If I didn't know better I would be surprised that the so-called conservatives would fight so hard to keep an inefficient insurance system that wastes 25% of the money.
That doesn't seem very conservative to me but then the term 'conservative' really refers to corporate fascists and has little to do with conservatism.