06/11/2002 Archived Entry: "Roll Call Vote on Debt Limit"
The uptick on Bush's borrow and spend politics continues:
The 68-29 roll call by which the Senate voted Tuesday to approve a $450 billion increase in the federal borrowing limit.
A "yes" was for the borrowing increase and a "no" was against it.
Voting "yes" were 36 Democrats, 31 Republicans and 1 independent.
Voting "no" were 14 Democrats and 15 Republicans.
Here's the list of the good guys and gals voting no:
Democrats No
Bayh, Ind.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Feingold, Wis.; Graham, Fla.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Lincoln, Ark.; Stabenow, Mich.; Torricelli, N.J.
Republicans No
Allard, Colo.; Campbell, Colo.; Chafee, R.I.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Fitzgerald, Ill.; Gramm, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Kyl, Ariz.; McCain, Ariz.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, N.H.; Smith, Ore.; Warner, Va.
The rest of them voted to deficit spend with no end in sight. Bush will vote yes when he signs this blank check that's already bounced. One thing to note. Of the 14 Democrats voting no, 5 of them are first termers, having been elected in 2000, reflecting the shift toward fiscal responsibility of the New Democrats. Also, all of the 2004 Senator contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination -- Lieberman, Kerry, Daschle, Biden, Edwards, Dodd-- the whole lot of them, are deficit spenders.
Replies: 4 comments
This is a tough issue. While I was devastated to see our budget surpluses vanish with a wave of Shrub's tax cuting wand, this vote was also one based on reality. It was either raise the debt limit, or hack and slash and eventually default on the nation's debt. And God knows there's no political will among anyone in DC to do what's truly right -- repeal the tax cut, eliminate all defense spending increases (and offset *necessary* new expenditures with cuts in SDI, Crusador, etc.), and resist massive, politically motivated expenditures like the farm welfare bill.
Ironically, though, it looks like the GOP-controlled House will put the brakes on the proposal. Thus, if the nation defaults, the blame will rest squarely on the GOP. Or, if the debt ceiling is finally raised and the US continues to face ballooning deficits, the GOP will still be blamed. Either way, the GOP has painted itself into a box, regardless of how Dems vote on the debt ceiling.
Posted by Kos @ 06/11/2002 11:07 PM PST
And if they're not deficit spenders, then they're gutless - each presumably feeling the need to bow to GWB's wish for yet more obselete, and expensive weapons systems - i.e. Crusader. I think there is real room for the Democrats to argue that all the missiles in the world cannot stop a handful of desperate men with even a little financial backing. GWB should take a leaf from Eisenhower's book - spending more on armaments does not guarantee security, especially in the nuclear age.
Posted by UK Dem @ 06/12/2002 02:30 AM PST
Those Republicans realize the political reality of this vote and the subsequent results. I would agree that this was for the most part, a symbolic vote in the Senate. Still, it was telling that there was plenty of yes votes to push this through, yet no one else amongst the Dems or GOP saw the political advantage (not to mention the fiscal responsibility) of being on the NO side of this vote.
This is a run away trainwreck, with debt ballooning 100M per month at this time, and it's sure to increase exponentially.
No matter how the shit hits the fan, it's definetly the Tax-cut & increased military spending that is at fault here, no one can argue this point. Many of the Republicans are more interested in bringing home fat military pork, and wedging the Democrats on the military, than they are in fiscal responsibility, and that truth is beginning to show.
The votes might be coming from both sides, but the responsibility of this lays directly on Bush. In the House, Hastart is going to attach it to the WOT pork bill, so the Republicans will get in line.
Posted by myDD @ 06/12/2002 08:30 AM PST
It all comes down to the economy and stock market. This much I have to give. The intelligence levels of Paul O'Neill, Mitch Daniels and Larry "the laughing stock" Lindsey do not match that of Stiglitz, Rubin, Binder and Summers (although Summers mostly made his name through his dad and in no way has the intellect of Stiglitz or Rubin). This incompetence is showing up in the results we see today, just like the competence of Stiglitz showed up in the form of rising stock markets and unprecedented prosperity in the late 1990s. There are a large number of conservative economists such as the three B's Barro, Boskin and Becker (a Nobel Laureate from Chicago), and to add to that we also have Anne Krueger who would make a great Treasury Secretary although she strongly disagrees with GW's protectionist policies on steel and agriculture. However, they are not personal friends of the Bush's and would not allow Bush to commit political suicide by just being loyal. Hence he did not select them. He has eight months to turn around the economy and eighteen to get it to the level of late 1997. Otherwise he will pay for rewarding his incompetent cronies with top economic posts in the government, September 11 and War against terroristm not withstanding. If the economy continues to suck in December 2003, Jeffords is least of the Vermont Headaches he has to worry about...there would be someone named Howard Dean. On the other hand, if the Dems complete a trifecta in 2002, Bush may be forced to the center and he will likely win in 2004.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/13/2002 09:33 AM PST
