Steve Pearce (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
If this week’s House and Senate votes on the Obama-GOP tax compromise had taken place next month, the entire New Mexico delegation would have opposed the deal.
U.S. Rep.-elect Steve Pearce, R-N.M., says he would have voted against the deal if he had the chance.
Of course, Pearce’s opposition isn’t for the same reason that the majority of the New Mexico delegation voted against the bill this week.
“While I agree with portions of this bill, I believe the American people could get a better deal in January,” Pearce said. “I support the tax portions of the plan. No American should experience a tax increase in these troubled economic times.”
“However, spending by the Washington politicians continues to build a debt that the American people cannot pay,” he said. “This bill and some of the others moving through the lame-duck Congress are too costly. After I take office in January, this is the kind of spending I hope to rein in so we can focus on getting our economy moving again to create jobs in southern New Mexico.”
Late Thursday, the House approved the bill on a vote of 277-148. New Mexico Democrats Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján, who will start their second terms in January, voted against it. Democrat Harry Teague, who Pearce defeated in November, voted for it.
Earlier this week, New Mexico’s two U.S. senators, Democrats Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, also voted against the compromise, which now heads to the president’s desk.
The House members’ votes weren’t a surprise. Heinrich and Luján had expressed concerns about the deal, while Teague had said he supported an extension of the Bush tax cuts, even for the wealthiest Americans.
Luján restated his concerns today.
“While I’m optimistic about the extension of unemployment benefits and the tax cuts for the middle class, I’m extremely concerned about the billions of dollars that will go towards tax cuts that will only benefit millionaires and billionaires,” Luján said. “At a time when we need to be protecting social security, I’m opposed to the raiding of the social security trust fund in this package.”
So, bottom line: Pearce opposed the bill because of the spending provisions, including an extension of unemployment benefits, that were sought by Democrats. The four Democrats who will still be part of the delegation next year opposed the bill because of the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy and the changes to the estate tax – provisions that were sought by Republicans.
And Teague, the only current member of the delegation who won’t be around next year, was the only member to go along with the president’s compromise with Republicans.