Partial Retraction On Martha Roby

Last week I wrote a piece entitled "I Have Questions For Martha Roby". In that piece, I pointed out that Roby had voted for the final debt-limit deal.

As it turns out, this was incorrect. The early reports I had read did not list Roby as one of the no-votes, and that's what I based my piece on. So I apologize to Miss Roby and retract that portion of my post.

However, I believe that the questions I posed are still relevant today. Why? First, Roby supported Boehner's bill, which looked very similar to the bill that finally passed. Second, Roby's stated reason for voting no has nothing to do with any of the points raised by my questions, but rather centers around the automatic defense cuts if the "supercommittee" can't reach a deal.

"I was unable to support this legislation because, after a careful reading of the bill, I fear it could ultimately result in devastating and unjustified cuts to our national security. This bill, unlike previous proposals I supported, has a weak firewall against potentially destructive defense cuts. To be sure, there are savings to be found in the Pentagon’s budget, and I have already voted this year to trim wasteful and unnecessary defense spending. But this bill goes much too far. The legislation would use our defense budget as an insurance policy to guarantee savings in the event that the special joint committee, which this legislation creates, fails to achieve cuts in other areas of the government bureaucracy."

As you can see, that was her sticking point. Presumably, she still supports the idea that one year's worth of borrowing can be "paid back" or "balanced" with matching spending cuts over a ten-year period. (Assuming those later-year cuts ever happen... future Congresses have full control over future budgets, and can do anything they like.) Presumably, she still thinks it's fine and dandy to let Obama borrow another $1 trillion this year, while enacting a paltry $27 billion in one-year spending cuts. Presumably, she still thinks the idea of the super-committee is fine... a 12-member minority meeting, potentially in secret, to devise a bill that no other Congressman has the opportunity to influence or alter through the amendment process.

And as I said in my original post, if that's her idea of how our legislative process should work, she needs to resign and take a civics class.

So, although I was wrong in my statement that she voted for the debt-limit deal, based upon her earlier support for similar bills, and based upon her stated reason for voting no, I believe the questions I posed are still relevant.