'Moderate Democrats' down to two
Catching up with the news while putting off yard work:
The Senate's "Moderate Democrats" flunked their first test.
Evan Bayh of Indiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska were the only Dems who voted against the massively bloated budget late Thursday.
Bayh founded the so-called Moderate Democrats, which focused on "the importance of passing a fiscally responsible spending plan in the Senate." Fifteen other senators, including our Kay Hagan, joined the group, with much fanfare.
On March 25, Hagan and Moderate Democrats expressed concern about CBO budget projections and implications of long-term deficits.
In an editorial March 26, we praised Hagan for her affiliation with the Moderate Democrats.
In a speech at Elon University March 28, Hagan called the projected deficits in the proposed budget "completely unsustainable and unacceptable."
When it came time to vote, however, Hagan and all but two of the Moderate Democrats fell in line with the Other Democrats.
Bayh explained his no vote in a statement on his Web site. Its most pertinent portion is this:
“The spending blueprint voted on by the Senate today represents an improvement from years past because it is more transparent and honest than the budgets to which we’ve grown accustomed. The money we will borrow will fund important priorities like affordable health care, energy independence, job creation, and education improvements, rather than tax cuts for the most affluent.
“However, under this budget, our national debt skyrockets from $11.1 trillion today to an estimated $17 trillion in 2014. As a percentage of our gross domestic product, it reaches a precarious 66.5 percent. The deficit remains larger than our projected economic growth, an unsustainable state of affairs. This budget will increase our borrowing from and dependence upon foreign nations.
“I cannot support such results. We can do better, and for the sake of our nation and our children’s future, we must.”
Ben Nelson also offered a statement about his vote against the budget. It said, in part:
“I am disappointed that this budget was passed without the cuts in spending that I had hoped for.
“When you’ve balanced 8 budgets like I did as Governor, you don’t like to see a budget with a lot of red ink. The Administration inherited a lot of red ink in this budget, along with our ailing economy.
“But this budget still has trillion dollar-plus deficits in the next two years, and adds unsustainably to the debt. These are tough times, and the federal government needs to take a lesson from American families and cut down on the things we can do without.
“Like many of my fellow Nebraskans, I am concerned about the continual increase in deficit spending - we’re not going to borrow our way out of this economic crisis."
In contrast, Sen. Hagan offered no statement on her Web site about her budget vote, only this lone sentence in her "Week in Review":
"The Senate passed the budget just before midnight, with Senator Hagan voting in favor."
Addendum: Sen. Richard Burr joined all other Republicans in voting against the budget, but I can't find any statement about it on his Web site. However, Burr never led anyone to believe he would vote otherwise.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I'm glad Sen. Hagan came to her senses. Opposing this budget because it's too big would make perfect sense if these were normal times. But they're not normal, as each successive piece of economic news makes clear. (April marks the 16th month of this recession, which ties it for the longest one since the Great Depression.) Special medicine is needed, in the form of spending and debt. Just as one doesn't judge medical procedures based on whether they'd make sense if the patient were healthy, neither should we judge the budget or the stimulus through a pretend lens of economic health.
If the Moderate Democrats (let alone the Republicans) were so opposed to government debt, they should have opposed it during the expansion of 2002-2007. That was when the economy was (relatively) healthy and that's when piling on debt was a bad idea. But instead, many of them actively supported deficit spending. This deep recession presents us with little choice but to stimulate the economy, which means that the Republicans and Moderate Democrats have it exactly backwards. They supported deficit spending when it made no sense and now they oppose it when it's truly needed.
I was quite disappointed to hear Sen. Hagan adopt the position of these economic know-nothings. It's good for all of us that she changed her mind. Hers was the right vote.
Posted on April 4, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate Demo-Rat? That's like calling a tornado a wind storm! Andrew's post shows the marked difference between conservatives and liberals.
Most of we conservatives railed against the spending during the Bush tenure, most vociferously the Prescription Drug Bill, the redundancy of the Homeland Security Dept., and the massive influx of many billions to the Education Dept.
Despite that, the deficit when the D-Rats assumed control of congress in January '07 was 2.3% of GDP (it's not projected to be below 6% for many years to come), GDP was 3.6%, and unemployment was 4.8%.
This spending, and the accompanying deficits are simply not sustainable. When the European Socialists (except for the bankrupt UK's PM) understand the danger of our spending, we might want to take notice.
The recent Treasury auction in the UK was a disaster. Our's was not very good. China is balking at financing more of our debt because they are worried that the weakness of the dollar is going to reduce the value of their payback. If China doesn't fund us, the only other alternative is to head to the basement and print more money like Zimbabwe did!
The Demo-Rats are more concerned about their party than they are concerned about what happens to the country. They are Demo-Rats first, and Americans somewhere down the list!
Posted on April 5, 2009 12:46 PM
Andrew, I'm probably an economic know-nothing, but this is a sincere question:
If government deficit spending stimulates the economy and is the right prescription for a recession, how did the economy fall into recession while so much government deficit-spending was already occurring?
Posted on April 5, 2009 1:58 PM
Another question would be, assuming Bayh is correctly stating that these budgets will pile up an additional $6 trillion in deficit spending over the next five years, is how long does the administration/Congress expect the recession to last? Do they actually assume the need to continue the stimulative effect of such massive deficit spending for so many years?
Posted on April 5, 2009 2:02 PM
Doug said:
Andrew, I'm probably an economic know-nothing, but this is a sincere question:
If government deficit spending stimulates the economy and is the right prescription for a recession, how did the economy fall into recession while so much government deficit-spending was already occurring?
Don't worry Doug! In about 9 months you will become a economic expert when you take a wheelbarrow full of paper currency to Krogers to buy a loft of bread! In fact! Your chances are excellent in recieving the first Greensboro economic award of the Obama Reverse Lord Maynard Keyes Fabin Socialist [ Print MO currency] and live in a economic paradise.
Posted on April 5, 2009 4:25 PM
In the sixties the Kennedy administration promoted radical new business investment incentives to pull the economy back on track. In our competitive world economy would it not make better sense to provide direct stimulus to the business sector instead of putting more spending money in consumer pockets? That seems like a more focused approach to addressing our economic woes than spending more and increasing national debt.
Posted on April 5, 2009 9:16 PM
Bayh is being completely dishonest about his "fiscal responsibility" line. At the same time he was saying this he voted for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Decreased revenue grows the deficit just as sure as increased spending.
Posted on April 6, 2009 9:03 AM
Why aren't tax cuts a stimulus?
The president says they are, which is why he included some in his stimulus package.
If these modest tax cuts provide a stimulus, wouldn't bigger tax cuts increase the stimulative effect?
If they do, shouldn't the increased economic activity also increase tax revenue and help offset the deficit?
Posted on April 6, 2009 9:08 AM