Most House Democrats, 3 Democratic Senators Reject Obama's Austerity Budget Deal With Republicans

[Better Believe It]

Most House Democrats Reject Obama's Austerity Budget Deal With GOP
by John Nichols
April 15, 2011

WASHINGTON - President Obama cut a budget deal with congressional Republican leaders that outlined draconian cuts to needed programs while doing little if anything to address a supposed fiscal crisis. As such, it was a classic austerity agreement that served the special interests that dominate the upper ranks of both parties while ill-serving the great mass of Americans.

Congress has approved the deal that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders says "moves America in exactly the wrong direction. It cuts programs for struggling working families, the elderly, children and the poor while preserving tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires." But Sanders and a majority of House Democrats opposed it.

That represents a significant break with Obama and his attempt to get congressional Democrats to buy into the austerity agenda -- and the false premise that America has the resources for wars and bank bailouts but not for health care, education and meaningful investments in community renewal and job creation.

Of the 167 "no" votes, 108 came from Democrats and 59 from Republicans. The measure passed the Senate 81-19. Sixteen of the "no" votes came from conservative Republicans who thought the deal did not cut enough. Two senior Democrats, Vermont's Patrick Leahy and Michigan's Carl Levin, opposed the deal. So, too, did Vermont Independent Sanders. (Ron Wyden (D-OR) also voted no. BBI)

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/15-0


-------------------------------------------

News Release: Sanders Statement on Budget Cuts

April 14, 2011

WASHINGTON, April 14 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today after Congress passed $38 billion in spending cuts as part of legislation to finance the federal government through September:

“This budget moves America in the exactly wrong direction. It cuts programs for struggling working families, the elderly, children and the poor while preserving tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

“Unfortunately, this is just the beginning. Republicans in Congress have tasted blood. Now they are dead set on making even deeper cuts. They have proposed a radical budget for 2012 that would end Medicare and Medicaid as we know them while providing $1 trillion more in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations.

“There is no question that we must reduce soaring deficits, but it must be done in a way that is fair, which protects the most vulnerable people in our country, and which requires shared sacrifice.”

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=cee0492d-8a11-4b68-8a63-94b05c7788ba

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[LoveIsNow]

2. Evidently Ron Wyden (D-OR) also voted no.

<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00061>

Just noting, as the article didn't.

[Better Believe It]

3. You're right. That makes three Democratic Senators plus Sanders.

[Aerows]

4. The DNC sent me an email begging for a donation

Here's what I sent them:

I'm the wrong person to be asking for a donation. There are only a handful of Democrats in Congress that are worthy of my support, and I will be giving directly to those who align with my progressive principles.

Every single person in Congress and the White House that howls about the budget deficit should immediately vote to cut their pay to one third of what it is, along with their staff, pay for their own health insurance (like ordinary Americans do), and fund their own retirement. That's what you ask Americans to do - you do it first.

Frankly, there is such a disconnect between what is the true problem with out budget deficit, it's ridiculous. Most Americans know what the problem is - rampant waste in the defense budget, too many tax cuts for the wealthy, too many corporate subsidies and corporations that pay no taxes.

We give bailouts to banks, which then pay little to no taxes, no one goes to jail, and meanwhile, inflation is rampant. The problem isn't just Republicans, it's Democrats, too. Both have turned into little more than corporate mouth pieces intent on getting their own, competing for lobbyist dollars, while essentially turning our government over completely to the wealthy.

[DCKit]

7. Nicely stated. I've never been that polite to them. nt

[crickets]

8. Wow. You covered the issues very well.

And so politely, too. The DNC needs to hear this over and over again. :thumbsup:

[leftstreet]

5. K&R

[midnight]

6. The first paragraph tells the reader everything it needs to know about the

direction of the president's financial responsibilities to others outside the financially elite.... A very troubling pattern... Without the same tools and instruments that the wealthy have been able to use via the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act... So I don't know why the American worker has to share in any more sacrifice...


Reasons for the Act - Commercial Speculation
Commercial banks were accused of being too speculative in the pre-Depression era, not only because they were investing their assets but also because they were buying new issues for resale to the public. Thus, banks became greedy, taking on huge risks in the hope of even bigger rewards. Banking itself became sloppy and objectives became blurred. Unsound loans were issued to companies in which the bank had invested, and clients would be encouraged to invest in those same stocks.

Effects of the Act - Creating Barriers
Senator Carter Glass, a former Treasury secretary and the founder of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, was the primary force behind the GSA. Henry Bascom Steagall was a House of Representatives member and chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee. Steagall agreed to support the act with Glass after an amendment was added permitting bank deposit insurance (this was the first time it was allowed).

As a collective reaction to one of the worst financial crises at the time, the GSA set up a regulatory firewall between commercial and investment bank activities, both of which were curbed and controlled. Banks were given a year to decide on whether they would specialize in commercial or in investment banking. Only 10% of commercial banks' total income could stem from securities; however, an exception allowed commercial banks to underwrite government-issued bonds. Financial giants at the time such as JP Morgan and Company, which were seen as part of the problem, were directly targeted and forced to cut their services and, hence, a main source of their income. By creating this barrier, the GSA was aiming to prevent the banks' use of deposits in the case of a failed underwriting job.

The GSA, however, was considered harsh by most in the financial community, and it was reported that even Glass himself moved to repeal the GSA shortly after it was passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis.http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp