« Cross-Country Anti-Inaugural: The Movie | Main | No Election Reform Action in Senate Rules Committee Today »
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Sound Off! Democratic List of Shame
The horrendously damaging federal bankruptcy bill was pretty much written by the credit card block buster MBNA, which is the single biggest contributor to the Republicans. The bill was just allowed to move to a vote in the Senate and imminent passage due to the support of these Democrats, who voted for cloture:
Biden (DE)
Byrd (WV)
Carper (DE)
Conrad (ND)
Johnson (SD)
Kohl (WI)
Landrieu (LA)
Lieberman (CT)
Lincoln (AR)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Salazar (CO)
Stabenow (MI)
Why would any Democrat vote for a bill that punishes working class and poor people for such transgressions as running up huge medical expenses they can't afford, even though they are insured? Despite the fact that the majority of personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills, not flagrant overspending? Oh, must be those nice campaign contributions that serve to make Democrats into Republicans-lite, lickety-split.
Personally, I find it despicable that Democrats didn't fillibuster this incredibly biased bill until The Rapture comes. I know that the next time the DNC comes looking for donations, especially to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC), I'll be sending them a nice reply of "no dice" while citing this vote. How about you?
Imagine this scenario: You are a working class family where the dad gets sick. He is hospitalized, can't work for a time, and owes alot of money to the hospitals and doctors. The family gets behind on their credit card payments. They get big late fees tacked on. Then their interest rate goes from 12 percent to 29.9 percent because the credit card companies have now classified them as a bad risk. This new rate, which used to be called illegal usury or loan sharking, applies to the entire balance on the credit cards, not just new purchases. Nothing like changing interest rates retroactively to purchases from months and months ago.
Because they make a few bucks more than the mean salary of American families, they cannot discharge their debts via bankrupcty anymore, according to the new bill. Instead, they will be forced to continue paying off the cards for years. With the high interest rate of 29.9 percent, they can keep paying and paying what they can allegedly afford, while the balance continues to rapidly grow. One step forward, three steps back.
Voila! The credit card companies have a lifetime debtor on their books! Success for the banking industry! Which, by the way, is already making profits that are way more than healthy. With the new perks, they'll be collecting money from those least able to pay for decades upon decades. No wonder this bunch of deadbeat Dems decided to allow the bill to pass. Right? Remember when Democrats were for the little guy (or gal)? How many years ago was that?
You can read a detailed analysis of the bankruptcy bill at Daily Kos. Please note that CORPORATE bankruptcy rules are left as is. No punishment for the likes of Enron execs, oh no. Click if you want to contact these shameful Dems. --Barbara Wold
March 9, 2005 at 11:19 AM in Democratic Party | Permalink
Comments
I saw Noam Chomsky speak a few months ago. He said very clearly that poll after poll indicated that by far the majority of Americans held values consistant with Progressive ideals. Yet, for some reason Americans vote AGAINST thier own values and interests.
The poll results discussed below support Chomsky's assertions. Americans, again and again, vote against thier own economic, health, social and environmental values and interests. Why is that?
Note that: In percentage terms, by far the largest increase was for conserving and developing renewable energy - an extraordinary 1090% or $24 billion - which also had the highest percentage of respondents (70%) favoring an increase. The environment and natural resources received a more modest increase of 32% or $9 billion, with 42% of respondents favoring increases.
The poll was conducted by The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland.
The Story:
"A new poll finds that the American public would significantly alter the Bush administration's recently proposed federal budget. Presented a breakdown of the major areas of the proposed discretionary budget and given the opportunity to redistribute it, respondents made major changes.
The most dramatic changes were deep cuts in defense spending, a significant reallocation toward deficit reduction, and increases in spending on education, job training, reducing reliance on oil, and veterans. These
changes were favored by both Republicans and Democrats, though the changes were generally greater for Democrats.
Sixty-one percent of respondents redirected some funds to reducing the budget deficit, with the mean respondent reallocating $36 billion (Democrats $39.4 billion, Republicans $29.6 billion), though they were not told anything about the size of the deficit.
Defense spending received the deepest cut, being cut on average 31% - equivalent to $133.8 billion - with 65% of respondents cutting. The second largest area to be cut was the supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, which suffered an average cut of $29.6 billion or 35%, with two out of three respondents cutting. Also cut were transportation (cut $12.6 billion or 18%), federal administration of justice ($8.7 billion or 21%), and space research and science ($1.2 billion or 5%). Majorities of 53-58% of respondents favored cuts in each of these cases.
The largest increases were for social spending. Spending on human capital was especially popular including education which was increased $26.8 billion (39%) and job training and employment which was up $19 billion or a remarkable 263%. Medical research was upped on average $15.5 billion (53%).
Veterans benefits were raised 40% or $12.5 billion and housing went up 31% or $9.3 billion. In most cases clear majorities favored increases (education 57%, job training 67%, medical research 57%, veteran's benefits 63%), though only 43% of respondents favored increases for housing.
In percentage terms, by far the largest increase was for conserving and developing renewable energy - an extraordinary 1090% or $24 billion - which also had the highest percentage of respondents (70%) favoring an increase. The environment and natural resources received a more modest increase of 32%
or $9 billion, with 42% of respondents favoring increases.
As the defense cuts proposed were large, respondents were asked in a separate set of questions what areas they would want to cut. Majorities favored cutting the capability for large-scale nuclear wars, the number of
nuclear weapons, and spending on developing new types of nuclear weapons. (Asked how many nuclear weapons the US needs to have on alert, the median response was just 150.) Capabilities for large-scale naval wars and large-scale land wars were both reduced by 58% of respondents. Majorities
also favored cutting spending on new types of naval destroyers (55%), bombers (53%), and submarines (52%) and nearly as many cut the inventory for each of these items as well.
However, respondents particularly preserved spending for troops, including for salaries (82%), the overall number of military personnel (61%), and development of new equipment for infantry and Marines (64%). Spending relevant to fighting terrorism was also preserved, such as for intelligence
(62%), troops for special operations (58%), and advanced communications systems (69%). Also preserved was spending on capabilities for conducting peacekeeping (58%), fighting insurgents or guerrillas (56%), and work on new types of high-technology missiles and bombs (55%)."
So, if the majority of Americans support OUR values, why don't we dominate this country!?!
Posted by: Jim O'Donnell | Mar 9, 2005 3:58:39 PM
Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly deconstructs this poll. His take, it's obviously wrong, since no one could ever win by proposing similar budget cuts. (Imagine if Dean had said he wanted to cut the military by 30%--he'd have been slaughtered.) So, while it's nice to read stuff like this, it doesn't really help us much, not in today's political climate.
Also, many are excusing (or trying to) Biden's vote, and others by talking about how they're beholden to the credit card industry (esp. in Delaware) for their political livelihoods. This ignores the point that the same folks who gave Kerry and Dean record-breaking contributions would have made him our hero, and more than taken up the slack.
Maybe they just don't feel they can count on us yet.
Posted by: Kathy | Mar 10, 2005 1:12:52 AM
