« AFSCME Endorses Eric Griego for Congress in NM-01 | Main | ABQ City Council Calls for DOJ Investigation of APD for Possible Civil Rights Violations »
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Senate Passes Debt Ceiling Budget Bill: Statements by Bingaman, Udall, Balderas
The U.S. Senate today passed S.365, the Budget Control Act of 2011, by a vote of 74-26. (On the House side yesterday, Congressmen Martin Heinrich and Steve Pearce voted yes; Rep. Ben Ray Lujan voted no.) I'm sorry to say that, like most Democrats in the Senate, Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Tom Udall (D-NM) voted for the legislation, although they both made it clear they weren't pleased about having to do so. Sen. Udall was particularly vocal on that point.
Only six Dem Senators voted no -- Gillibrand (D-NY), Harkin (D-IA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Menendez (D-NJ), Merkley (D-OR), Nelson (D-NE) -- as did Bernie Sanders (I-VT). President Obama wasted no time in signing the bill in the Oval office after the Senate action (above).
Udall
Senator Udall delivered remarks on the Senate floor this morning prior to his vote. Below is the video of the speech, which Udall's office aptly entitled, "This Deal Stinks," and you can find the text version here. Excerpt: “As my friend, the good Senator from Vermont, said yesterday -– this package is ‘grotesquely unfair and bad economic policy.' While I firmly believe we must take steps to rein in our deficit this package is far from the ideal way to do so."
Bingaman
Although Bingaman believes the plan is far from perfect, he said he decided to vote for it to avoid a national economic crisis.
“There are reasons to vote for this package and reasons to vote against it. One of my main concerns about this proposal is that it does not raise additional revenue. Every other deficit reduction package we’ve considered in my nearly 30 years in the Senate has contained both cuts and additional revenue, and that is the balanced approach I believe we should have taken in this case.
“The other major concern I have about this plan is the process by which it came together. I believe approving this proposal could embolden Members of Congress in the future to hold our economy hostage to their demands, and that is a dangerous precedent for the country.
“I decided to vote for this compromise legislation, however, because it prevents our country from going into financial default, which would be a catastrophe for the economy of the United States and the world.
“Finally, the package does accomplish long-term deficit reduction, which I believe needs to be accomplished. Now Congress must turn its attention to what should be our No. 1 priority: job creation.”
Balderas
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Hector Balderas said he would have voted for the bill because default would have been even worse, and released this statement expressing his views about the legislation:
"This plan is not a compromise. It's extortion by those in the Tea Party that would hold our economy hostage and force America to default on its obligations.
"But while I'm disturbed by much in this plan, default would have been far worse. I would have voted 'yes' in order to avoid historic default and/or a costly downgrade in our credit, either of which would have had a devastating economic impact on New Mexico families.
"The most disturbing part of all of this, is that we could have avoided this difficult fiscal situation in the first place. There's no question that we need to be serious about reducing our deficit. But we could have done it by taking a long-term, balanced approach that looked at strategic spending cuts, closing unfair tax loopholes for the wealthy, and actually growing the economy for the middle class. If people in Washington were serious about tackling the problem, they wouldn't have irresponsibly brought us to the brink of economic catastrophe just to score ideological points.
"Avoiding a default on our obligations is the bare minimum we expect from Washington. Economic disaster should never be threatened as leverage. But that's what Tea Party elements in Washington made it clear that they were willing to risk. They threatened Social Security and Medicare payments, veterans benefits, and even pay for our active duty military personnel. They've shaken confidence in the full faith and credit of the United States government. Their approach has resulted in both the the United States and New Mexico being placed on credit watch. Recent reports show that their approach actually cost taxpayers $1.7 billion in additional interest payments that wouldn't have been charged before this debacle began. And so this deal is the only way to protect New Mexicans from further damage from their fiscally and economically destructive approach.
"Now that we've averted this short-term crisis, it's time for Washington to actually fix the problem. We need to ensure that we are never on the brink of catastrophic default again. And we need to tackle our deficit in a responsible and balanced way. That means balancing spending cuts with real revenue, closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations, protecting our safety net, and growing the economy by creating jobs. And the only way to create jobs is by being smart and investing in programs that will help more New Mexicans participate in our economy -- like investment in education, innovation, protecting unemployment benefits for those trying to get back on their feet, and helping small businesses grow and succeed."
Republican Senate Candidates
According to the National Journal, Repubican Senate candidate and former Rep. Heather Wilson released a statement opposing the bill, saying she is worried that the consequences to national security would be "severe."
"After all the debate surrounding this bill, in the end, it is just not good enough and I do not support it," Wilson said. "Our government still spends far more money than it takes in, and this bill does very little to change that. If we want a better bill, we need a better Senate."
As for the other two Republican candidates for Senate, Lt. Gov. John Sanchez was against it and Greg Sowards also said he would have voted no.
New Mexico Senate Majority Leader
State Senator Michael S. Sanchez released yesterday about the debt ceiling deal and congratulating the President for his "strong leadership."
Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.
August 2, 2011 at 04:48 PM in Economy, Populism, Hector Balderas, Jobs, Right Wing, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Sen. Tom Udall, Taxes | Permalink
Comments
"There's no question that we need to be serious about reducing our deficit."
That's Balderas.
Wrong again. Not only is there a very big question about whether we need to be serious about the deficit right now, most smart economists (Krugman, Thoma, Delong, et al.) agree that we do NOT need to be serious about the deficit right now.
We need to ignore the deficit, and get serious about jobs, by increasing government spending to compensate for a lack of demand. Apparently Balderas did NOT pass Econ 101 - Macro.
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Aug 2, 2011 8:57:29 PM
Michael: You took one sentence from a 460-word, very detailed statement,and although you may disagree with Hector's views, your insults are quite disturbing. It's ok if you dont support Balderas - but your personal attack is quite overboard, simplistic, and disappointing. We're better than this, Democrats!
Posted by: Javier | Aug 2, 2011 9:42:17 PM
Javier: you accuse me of making a "personal attack".
You are wrong. You are so wrong that I have to wonder whether you are acting in bad faith.
I took one sentence and disagreed with it. I explained (very briefly) the reason for my disagreement and I cited real economists who also disagree with the statement. I drew the conclusion that Balderas doesn't understand economics.
That's not a personal attack. That's an attack on his position on, and understanding of, a crucial issue facing the country today.
You don't even bother to answer my criticism of his economic views - instead you accuse me of being "overboard" (sic) and simplistic - without giving any rational basis for these assertions. Do you think you could possibly, in the future, restrict yourself to disagreeing on matters of substance, rather than simply saying 'now let's all play nice.' Playing nice is not a political view or even (as we have just seen with the debt ceiling) a successful political strategy.
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Aug 3, 2011 6:04:33 AM
I am currently supporting Hector Balderas for the Senate.
That having been said, I share Michael's concern about Balderas not understanding economics. I too see the debt issue as an artificial contrived one, intended to scare the public in condoning the dismantling of SS, Medicaid, and Medicare, and to continue to allow the very wealthy to use government for their exclusive benefit.
I hope Hector will read the economists (in addition to the three very good ones listed, I would also include Robert Reich, Dean Baker, and Michael Hudson).
If Hector does not understand this core issue-- what makes a viable, productive economy -- he will lose my support. Putting people to productive work should be the number one political issue.
The debt debate was silliness.
Posted by: Erich Kuerschner | Aug 3, 2011 7:17:44 AM
Adopting the right wing fetish with "deficit reduction" might have been the biggest mistake Obama and the Democrats made before and during the fictitious "debt ceiling crisis." That mistake continues with all these statements published here talking about cutting the deficit as being some important immediate need that must be met or else!
Mentioned here- https://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/the-new-default-a-sad-history-of-the-debt-limit-fight.php
"The party's second error was its collective decision to buy into the basic ideological theme underlying the debt limit demands: That deficits are an immediate threat that needs to be dealt with now, largely, if not entirely by cutting spending; that improving the country's fiscal outlook would by some alchemy instill "confidence" in markets, and thus inspire business owners to hire people to serve clients who don't exist because they're also out of work."
Laughable that the Republicans would be concerned about this after creating huge debts by simultaneously cutting taxes, launching 2 wars and adding Medicare D drug coverage in a way that gives Big Pharma the most money it can and then not putting in any way to pay for that.
Now that the country is reeling from lost jobs, a paralyzed economy, probably 4-5 unpaid for wars, millions of foreclosures etc., suddenly the Republicans want to address the deficit? And do it with not a cent in raised taxes?
Every Democrat should be repeating and repeating that we need to raise taxes and increase government spending or we will never get out of this economic mess. Instead they keep bringing up fiscal responsibility only in terms of spending cuts, as if raising revenues to pay your bills is NOT fiscal responsible. It's fiscally responsible in what is really a depression to increase government spending as FDR did. All Democrats need to stop using right wing taking points and go back to supporting principles that have been at the heart of the Democratic Party for decades.
Posted by: Econ 101 | Aug 3, 2011 7:24:52 AM
I think "econ 101" gets it mostly right - Unemployment is a loss that not only can NEVER be recouped, it also snowballs into future losses.
I should point out that Obama is the candidate for Wall Street, and that there is much evidence for his support of the dismantlement of entitlements.
Whether politicians are more than the public face for common resource decisions made elsewhere, I leave for those more astute in politics to untangle.
"The truth is, they want you, you see, to be poor," Aristophanes wrote in his play “The Wasps.” "If you don't know the reason, I'll tell you. It's to train you to know who your tamer is. Then, whenever he gives you a whistle and sets you against an opponent of his, you jump out and tear them to pieces."
Posted by: Erich Kuerschner | Aug 3, 2011 7:34:20 AM
he thing that troubles me most about these comments from our Democratic politicians is the fact that they all decry the devastating effects of the legislation, which they just endorsed by voting for, and say we had to do it to save the economy but we must not allow such tactics to be used again.
This excuse for joining with the Republicans in creating a situation where a handful of committee members can decimate our social programs, including Social Security and Medicare, is as lame as it gets.
Rather than stand and fight for the principles the Democratic Party has stood on since FDR, rather than force the President to raise the debt limit himself instead of giving away the farm, rather than refuse to give in to hostage taking by those intent on undoing the fabric of our democratic form of government, they surrendered across the board and handed the lunatics the keys to the Congress.
As a result of this complete capitulation these “champions of the people” have just helped to ensure(according to many economists)higher unemployment, lower or negative economic growth (recession,) not to mention a demoralized base that is increasingly unlikely to mount an effective opposition to the tea baggers, and an empowered lunatic right which will hold the nation hostage again and again. And why shouldn’t they since there are precious few Democrats who have the spine to defend the American people against such tactics
This is the road to disaster, and I am ashamed of each and every American politician who voted for this abomination, but especially the Democrats who helped pass this with overwhelming stamp of bi-partisan support.
Posted by: Art Jaquez | Aug 3, 2011 11:52:26 AM
I want to know why Heinrich's explanation on why he voted for the bill is not included?
Posted by: charlotte | Aug 3, 2011 1:07:55 PM
Yes, his excuse was no different from the others.
Posted by: Art Jaquez | Aug 3, 2011 2:53:17 PM
Charlotte and Art: It helps to read my posts before jumping to conclusions.
Since Rep. Martin Heinrich is still in office in the House, his explanation was included in my post on that vote. You can find his statement included here: https://bit.ly/ruPvFE along with my commentary on his vote.
Congressman Heinrich did not vote in the Senate, thus his statement is not included here.
I did include State Auditor Hector Balderas's explanation here as a courtesy and because I thought readers would be interested. Although obviously he is not in the Senate, he is running for the Senate seat so I thought this would be the proper place to include it.
Posted by: barb | Aug 3, 2011 5:30:54 PM
I have no problem with dissenting opinions. I value diversity in all its forms, including opinion. However, I find it disheartening when our own Democrats use ultra-simplistic arguments to, for lack of a better term, "attack" someone when we disagree with that person. This is what the Republican Party has done for years - If you support gay marriage and a woman's right to choose, "you must hate God." If you support immigrant rights, you must be "pro terrorist and anti American." If you support raising revenues by - dare I say it - RAISE TAXES on the wealthiest Americans, corporations, etc., you're a "tax and spend Liberal." In this case, if you make the argument that the national deficit deserves a serious debate, then "you don't understand simple economics."
I find it quite insulting to have to read people's comments attacking Hector Balderas for stating that "there's no question that we need to be serious about reducing our deficit." Nothing in that statement, in my opinion, is false, uneducated, or ignorant. Especially when it's within the context of EVERYTHING ELSE that he stated in his statement (closing unfair tax loopholes for the wealthy, etc., etc., etc.).
I am all for debate, but do we have to go down this very simplistic road?
On the other hand, no one is implying that Senator Bingaman doesn't understand economics - and he also stated that reducing the deficit is important. So do we have a double standard here?
I personally am disappointed by this "compromise." I work with people everyday who are living, literally, paycheck to paycheck, and who are hanging by a thread. I wish our President and our Congressional Delegation could/would have done more. I wish the Tea Party, which represents an extreme minority in this country, did not have the clout that they have. There's no reason for them to have the kind of power that they are exerting. I think that we are headed into a dark time in our history, and it's going to take REAL LEADERSHIP to guide us out of these dark times. That means that as Democrats we must stand united. I look forward to good, healthy debates between all our candidates for office (especially those vying for national office). I don’t agree with all our candidates on everything, but I am not going to make baseless “attacks” (or whatever you want to call them) on those who I don’t support. I think that the criticisms of Balderas in this comment tread are unfair and quite simplistic, in my honest opinion. You took one sentence from a much nuanced statement and criticized him for it.
Now, this vote on the debt ceiling is done and over with. Let’s move forward to fight for those who don’t have a voice , for our Democratic ideals, and for our country.
Posted by: Javier | Aug 3, 2011 5:41:51 PM
Senators Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman, as well as Rep. Martin Heinrich, voted for the awful debt ceiling bill. They then proceeded to explain how awful the bill was. Udall even said, "it stinks." So why did they vote for it? Their votes were NOT needed for passage so they could have easily voted their consciences. Who were they trying to impress?
Posted by: barb | Aug 3, 2011 7:13:46 PM
This whole debt celling debate was a con that both parties created to rip Americans off. Rather than getting depressed about it I thought that this Gawker headline would cheer us up.
Obama to Ride Bus Around Midwest, Yelling 'Jobs'
Don't fret, Sarah Palin! Stay home in Arizona or Alaska, wherever you summer. Because President Obama has decided to do the Midwestern second leg of your bus tour for you. That's right: Obama will ride around on a bus, too, as part of the great White House "pivot" to a focus on jobs, which no longer exist.
Posted by: Don't worry Obama's to the rescue | Aug 3, 2011 9:02:11 PM
Barbara, I have read your posts and given the nature of this blog, if you are going to include the comments of one Senate candidate, then you must include those of all the others, just as you did with Heather Wilson. This is especially true on a controversial issue such as this.Not to do so gives the candidate in question cover from much of the criticism he so richly deserves to bear along with his rivals.
Posted by: Art Jaquez | Aug 3, 2011 9:12:08 PM
Come on, Art. If Heather Wilson was still in the House, I'd report on her vote and include her statement in my post on the House vote. I put Rep. Heinrich's explanation of his vote where I wrote about the House vote, where it belongs, in my view, and I commented on what I thought about his vote, as well.
If I were going by what you say, I suppose I should have put Hector's statement in the House vote post as well, since I put Martin's there. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
If you don't agree you're free to add Hector's statement in a comments thread wherever you'd like.
Posted by: barb | Aug 3, 2011 11:41:53 PM
Firedoglake makes an important point about that photo of the Obama signing the bill all by himself:
Posted by: Jos. | Aug 4, 2011 6:23:16 AM
The flack against Balderas in the comments is a perfect example of somebody getting in trouble for telling the truth. Taken out of context, his statement that we need to get serious about reducing the deficit can be framed as a republican talking point. However, he was quite clear in his statement that we need a balanced approach. In the grand scheme of things, he is simply being honest when he says we need to reduce the deficit. God forbid, a candidate for higher office actually tells the truth! Shame on him! Lets get real, folks. It is clear from his comments that he believes deficit reduction needs to be done via stimulating growth, eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, getting rid of the loopholes that permit corporations like GE to not pay any taxes at all, etc.
Posted by: yesnomaybeyes | Aug 4, 2011 7:58:28 AM
Barb, you jumped me the other day for saying something good about Balderas, but not giving Heinrich equal praise at the same time, just saying
Posted by: Art Jaquez | Aug 4, 2011 11:33:00 AM
Sometimes it just doesn't pay to try to talk to self-proclaimed New Mexico Democrats.
Javier, thank you for your reply. I see you have raised a few very important issues, including reproductive rights, abortion, gay marriage, immigrant rights, terrorism, religious freedom, etc. I'm sure that all these issues have a direct bearing on the economic question, and had I worlds enough and time, I'd be happy to throw them all into the discussion.
But given the nature of this forum, would I be "insulting" if I suspected that just maybe possibly you were trying to cloud the issue and confuse everything by raising a whole lot of irrelevancies? Again, I'm left to wonder about your good faith.
You also say "On the other hand, no one is implying that Senator Bingaman doesn't understand economics - and he also stated that reducing the deficit is important. So do we have a double standard here?"
You raise a good point. I have here in my hand a list of 28,978,533 people who ALSO do not understand macroeconomcis. I am in the process of getting Barb to post this list, because obviously we can't fully discuss Balderas's position without also considering the position of these other nearly 30 million people who, like Bingaman, are NOT running for the Senate from NM.
I mean, really, are you serious, or is this another attempt to blow smoke, confuse the issue, raise irrelevancies? Again I question your good faith.
You say that "Nothing in [Balderas's] statement, in my opinion, is false, uneducated, or ignorant."
Let me suggest that you go here:
https://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/economics-1-001-fall-2010/id391533237
and here:
https://webcast.berkeley.edu/playlist#c,s,All,302E8BFF29E284A4
Those are two complete 1 semester courses available from Berkeley, free. Listen to all the lectures. I did, and I learned a lot. It was about 80 or 90 hours well spent.
I learned that Y=C+I+G+Nx. In other words, national income - or national product, they're pretty much the same - is the sum of Consumption, Investment, Government spending, and Net eXports. Right now C is way down, I is a bit down, Nx isn't very important - and the result is that national income is way down. We are producing, and selling, and earning the money from, about $1.5 Trillion less each year than we should be. That is, income (and production) is about $1.5 Trillion lower each year than it should be.
We could push it up again by boosting G. That would give everyone more income. But instead we're talking about "reducing the deficit", which will invariably make everyone poorer.
That's what Balderas is talking about - he wants a serious discussion of how we can make every American poorer.
No thanks.
And by the way, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a progressive, a liberal. That means I hold to certain views. Being a Democrat is a tribal affiliation, and we certainly don't need tribalism now.
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Aug 5, 2011 7:34:04 PM
