This was a vote on the Congressional Progressive Caucus  (“CPC”) budget, which was offered as a substitute for the Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House was considering. The CPC budget would have cut defense spending by $158 billion in Fiscal Year 2010, implemented nearly 800 outstanding Government Accountability Office recommendations to reduce waste, fraud and abuse at the Defense Department, saved $90 billion by executing a complete withdrawal from Iraq, rolled back what it characterized as “the Bush tax breaks for the top 1 percent”,  and invested $991 billion in non-defense discretionary spending including $300 billion for health care, anti-poverty programs, infrastructure, and non-military foreign assistance . An additional $30 billion was included to fight global warming and promote energy independence, $70 billion for education programs and $45 billion to make veterans health care an entitlement.

Rep. Woolsey (D-CA), a co-author of the budget proposal, began her statement in support by saying that, in the 2008 election, “the American people voted to take the country in a new direction, and that is exactly what the CPC budget does, not by making small adjustments, but by fundamentally changing the way our government allocates its resources.”  Rep. Lee (D-CA), a member of the CPC, speaking in support of its proposal, said that budgets “reflect our Nation’s values and priorities” and that the CPC budget “provides critical relief to those who are suffering during this economic crisis.”

Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), who opposed the CPC budget, grouped it together with the budget proposal put forward by the Democratic majority and said “they have a whole lot more in common than they have in their differences. (Both) of these budgets . . .  are simply radical . . . They tax too much, and they borrow too much. . . We were looking at entitlement spending simply being out of control.”  To support his opposition, Hensarling cited a recent statement from the Federal Reserve that, unless meaningful action is taken to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened.

Rep. Inglis (R-SC) opposed the CPC budget on the ground that it would increase the deficit and said “we’ve overdosed on credit, and there really is a limit to how much you can spend. . . .”
 
The proposed budget was defeated by a vote of 84-348 All 84 “aye” votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive House Members. One hundred and seventy-two other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-six Republicans voted “nay”. As a result, the budget put forward by the Congressional Progressive Caucus was not adopted.