This was a vote on the budget developed by the Republican Study Committee (“RSC”), which was offered as a substitute for the 2010 fiscal year Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House was considering. The Republican Study Committee is composed of conservative Republican House Members, and describes its mission as offering solutions based on principles of limited government, lower taxes, individual freedom, and a robust national defense.

Rep. Jordan (R-OH), offered the RSC budget as a substitute for the Democratic majority-supported budget, which the House was considering. Jordan described the Democratic budget as an “attack on freedom . . . (with) the largest tax increase in history, which attacks the liberty . . . of current taxpayers . . . .” He argued that, if the Democratic budget is passed: “(T)here will be more debt in the next 6 years than it took the 43 previous Presidents to accumulate. . .” Jordan also claimed the Democratic budget “attacks freedom” with its “cap-and-trade” proposal, under which companies that emit excessive amounts of pollutants would have to buy energy credits from those companies that pollute less; he said this energy proposal “is going to be a tax on every single American and on every single small business owner.” Jordan also attacked what he referred to as “the further nationalizing of health care” in the Democratic budget. He claimed that the budget would result in the creation of a “board that's going to now  decide what kind of health care treatment you and your family receive . . . .”

Jordan also said that the Republican Study Committee budget “takes a bold but responsible approach to getting our fiscal house in order, achieving balance by the year 2019.”  He argued that it “preserves the tax relief adopted earlier in this decade, it encourages small businesses to create jobs, and it protects families from any tax increase (and)ends the misguided spending bills and bailouts of recent years.’ Among the specific elements in it was a one percent annual reduction to all non-defense discretionary spending, while defense remained fully funded. Jordan emphasized: “(T)he key to fiscal sustainability lies in reforming entitlements, particularly Medicare, and our Republican Study Committee budget “responsibly slows the growth of Medicare . . ..”

Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR), speaking in opposition, said the tax cuts it contained are “outmoded and discredited, and . . . most important . . . (it cuts) aid to Americans most in need, students, the elderly, the sick, disabled, (while) assaulting our environment . . . .” Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD) expressed his opposition to it because he claimed the RSC approach “takes a meat ax to the Medicare program . . . . (It) goes back to the same old tax cutting for the wealthiest Americans, whereas the Democratic plan provides tax cuts of $1.5 trillion for working Americans, not just the wealthiest.” Van Hollen also claimed that the Republican budget would “slam a brake on the economic recovery plan that this Congress passed and is making its way through our economy.”  Jordan responded that the Republican budget does not “put up a stop sign (to recovery). We put up a stop sign to debt.”

The proposed budget was defeated by a vote of 111-322.  All 111 “aye” votes were cast by Republicans. All two hundred and fifty-seven Democrats, joined by sixty-five other Republicans, voted “nay”. As a result, the budget developed by the Republican Study Committee was not adopted.