The Pennsylvania House has passed a $2.2 billion revenue plan that should, at the least, serve as a re-set for budget negotiations that have been stalled through most of the summer.

The bill is the majority House Republicans' belated, no-new-taxes answer to a Senate plan passed with the endorsement of Gov. Tom Wolf in July that would have imposed new taxes on energy consumption and natural gas production.

The House plan, which passed 103-91, is a classic example of majority rule:

All the 'yes' votes came from members of the 121-member Republican majority, after several days of intense, intra-caucus negotiations. Fifteen GOP members joined all 76 Democrats present in voting 'no'.

The House package is unlikely to be the final solution to the state's budget woes, but it could be a significant part of it.

House Majority Leader Dave Reed, after the vote, said that's the point.

"Today we showed that we've got a majority of the House for the proposal we sent over (to the Senate), and it's a proposal that doesn't have tax increases," said Reed, a Republican from Indiana County.

"Hopefully, folks will be mindful of that proposal and we won't just be doing random personal income tax increases or taxes on electricity, telecomm, and home heating. Hopefully, that (vote) will send a message to the next round of negotiations."

House Republicans must now pitch their plan to four other parties - the governor, Senate Republicans and Democrats, and House Democrats - who each maintain the state does need more new, recurring revenue to close repeating operating deficits.

The Senate-passed plan provided that with approximately $570 million in new taxes.

The House plan essentially tries to rub out those taxes with $630 million in transfers out of special funds dedicated to programs like Philadelphia subways, open space preservation, or mitigation of underground storage tank leaks.

Supporters have argued over the last two weeks that their plan only taps surpluses in those special funds, and appropriately does that instead of raising taxes.

"Digging deeper into the taxpayer's pocket should not be the default solution," said Rep. Kristin Phillips-Hill, R-York County.

But Democrats said it's just as irresponsible to increase spending by $700 million - as the $32.0 billion budget passed in late June does - without a matching set of new revenues.

"Even if you had $1.5 billion in in fund balances, you still don't have $700 million to pay for the recurring expenses," complained Rep. Bryan Barbin, D-Somerset County.

The House Republicans' plan appears to have less than $200 million in recurring revenues: most of that tied to a yet-to-be-determined expansion of legalized gambling.

Some members of the Republican caucus had hoped to boost that number with a vote to impose a natural gas severance tax. When that effort collapsed early Wednesday, the GOP majority seemed on the brink of unravelling.

"Where is the tax on Marcellus Shale?" asked one of those members, Rep. Eugene DiGirolamo, R-Bucks County.

But after a long, closed-door session between the Republicans' Philly-area representatives and top House leaders, the necessary votes seemed to have been locked down.

Several members said they were agreeing to vote for the plan Wednesday as a negotiating position that does get rid of household taxes, confident that they can fight for a shale tax in the weeks to come.

Wednesday's debate played out against fears of a potential credit downgrade that could Pennsylvania labelled with one of the lowest state government credit ratings in the nation.

Besides raising borrowing costs for the state, many Democrats argued that's a reputational hit that could hurt Pennsylvania's ability to compete nationally for major new employers like Amazon's proposed second headquarters.

But the Republican supporters of the plan were resolute.

"We can either tax our constituents, or we can use the money that we already have," said Rep. Paul Schemel, a Republican from Waynesboro.

In fact, the House GOP plan carried some significant internal compromises between fiscal conservatives who led an exhaustive special funds research project this summer, and more moderate Republicans concerned about losing funding for mass transit and other programs.

One first step was bringing some of the House's more conservative Republican members on board with the tobacco borrowing - something the state Senate and Wolf have already agreed to in concept.

That happened by re-packaging the advance funding on the state's $350 million annual tobacco settlement from a traditional bond issue to what's being described as a sale of a portion of future payments, with a shorter payback period.

The House will shoot for $1 billion in up-front cash from that transaction; the "buyer" - the state's two major pubic employee pension funds are to be given the right of first refusal, under the bill's terms - would then recoup those funds and a premium over the next 10 years.

Plugging the borrowing into the equation to get to $2.2 billion allowed moderates to win reductions in the fund transfers promoted by the fiscal conservatives, slicing that number in half form an initially proposed $1.25 billion.

Included in the savings were two key transportation funds of major concern to members from the densely-populated Philadelphia suburbs will be tapped for $100 million, down from $477 million in the initial transfer plan.

That helped deliver just enough votes from suburban Philly Republicans to put the bill over the top.

Senate leaders offered a muted reaction to the House plan Wednesday night, with a spokeswoman for Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre County, saying the leadership will "thoroughly examine the components of the House plan and inform our members on the proposal's impact to the financial position of the Commonwealth.

"We recognize the urgency of the situation and will act swiftly to address the needs of the Commonwealth," Corman's statement concluded.

Wolf, through his press secretary J.J. Abbott, said it "fails the basic test of solving the fiscal problems" facing the state.

"Governor Wolf and bipartisan members of the House and Senate understand that recurring revenue is necessary to solve the structural deficit and avoid a credit downgrade. The House Republican proposal does neither.

"After leaving bipartisan negotiations in July, House Republicans have demanded to go it alone. Hopefully, now, they can get serious about funding the spending they passed two months ago, fixing the structural deficit and avoiding further consequences."