I'll begin with a snippet from ABC's Jennifer Parker's exclusive interview with Obama on This Week in January 2009:
"Well, right now, I’m focused on a pretty heavy lift, which is making sure we get that reinvestment and recovery package in place. But what you described is exactly what we’re going to have to do. What we have to do is to take a look at our structural deficit, how are we paying for government? What are we getting for it? And how do we make the system more efficient?"
"And eventually sacrifice from everyone?" I asked.
"Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said.
Pensions are disappearing, 401(k) plans suffer from market volatility, and many lost their savings in the financial crash. Yet there Obama was, claiming that the seniors of today and those of tomorrow (i.e. everyone) will need to sacrifice their ability to retire with dignity for a Social Security crisis that
does not exist.
Obama is currently engaging in a speaking tour to promote a "better bargain" for the middle-class; however, he has yet to take cuts to Social Security and Medicare off the negotiating table with Senate and House Republicans. Obama condemns the negative economic impact of sequestration and blames it on Congress, yet he fails to acknowledge that Jack Lew and Gene Sperling had designed sequestration (to force Democrats to agree to cut social insurance programs and Republicans to agree to raise taxes) and that he himself pledged to veto any effort by Congress to undo the automatic cuts of sequestration. The sequestration cuts are not bad enough to him that he would be willing to cancel them. Obama has maintained that he only supports ending the sequestration cuts by replacing them with equivalent deficit reduction--an unwise idea in a still depressed economy as Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, and others have been continually arguing to the deaf ears of the Very Serious People.
My diary opened with a quote from 2009 with Obama expressing his interest in a "grand bargain," a concept which has always referred to a combination of cuts to social insurance and mild tax increases. In the rest of the diary, I want to track the votes and bills, from 2010 to today, that have attempted to make this "grand bargain" a reality and the attempts to block such a quest and the damage it would inflict on seniors and working families. It is important to note that the shift to austerity, embodied in the Simpson-Bowles Commission, occurred when Democrats still had control of both houses. The shift from job creation to austerity was not merely the result of Republican intransigence. Rather, it was long desired by White House officials and advisers, many of whom had opposed the very idea of stimulus.
Tracking votes and volte-faces also allows us to know who has been consistent in advocating economic justice and who deserves blame for the austerity trap that exists in the mind of our legislators and the economic reality on the ground. I am particularly interested in identifying which Democrats warrant our praise for their steadfast opposition to the fetishization of the "grand bargain."
Nothing Says Democracy Like an Unelected Commission
On December 9, 2009, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) introduced a bill to create a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. Less than 10 months after the president signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress and the President were both increasingly turning toward austerity during a still weakened economy. Over the next month, Conrad's bill accrued 34 co-sponsors: 21 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and 1 Joe Lieberman.
The 21 Republicans were the following: Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Robert Bennett (R-UT), Kit Bond (R-MO), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Michael Crapo (R-ID), John Ensign (R-NV), Michael Enzi (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Kay Hutchison (R-TX), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), George LeMieux (R-FL), John McCain (R-AZ), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and George Voinovich (R-OH).
The 13 additional sponsors from the Democratic caucus were the following, a mix of moderates and conservatives: Evan Bayh (D-IN), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Jim Webb (D-VA).
This proposal received a vote as an amendment to the legislation that raised the debt ceiling in January 2010. It received 53 votes, failing to reach the 60 vote threshold that amendments often need because of (optional) procedural reasons. 39 Democrats and 14 Republicans supported the legislation. 21 Democrats and 25 Republicans opposed it. Seven of the Republican co-sponsors actually balked and voted against it: Bennett, Brownback, Crapo, Ensign, Hutchison, Inhofe, and McCain. (McCain is such a maverick that he votes against legislation he co-sponsored!)
Here are the 23 Democrats who (rightfully) voted “no.” 15 of them are still in the Senate. The rest have retired, died, or lost re-election. You'll see mostly (but not entirely) liberal faces here.
Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Max Baucus (D-MT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Richard Burris (D-IL), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Paul Kirk (D-MA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Tom Udall (D-NM), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Here are the 37 Democrats who supported the path to austerity. 27 of them are still in the Senate. The rest have retired, died, or lost re-election. The list, unfortunately, includes liberals like Boxer, Gillibrand, and Franken.
Evan Bayh (D-IN), Mark Begich (D-AK), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN),
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Ted Kaufman (D-DE), John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Harry Reid (D-NV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Jon Tester (D-MT), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ron Wyden (D-OR)
After the failure of that effort, Obama decided to go around Congress and will the Commission to life by himself. On February 18, 2010, he signed Executive Order 13531 to create the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
The Commission had the following mission, outlined in Section 4 of the order:
The Commission is charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run. Specifically, the Commission shall propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015. This result is projected to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers. The magnitude and timing of the policy measures necessary to achieve this goal are subject to considerable uncertainty and will depend on the evolution of the economy. In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.
Your Commission is Full of BS
This Commission, known as Simpson-Bowles or--to progressive critics-- the "catfood commission," consisted of 18 members as prescribed by the executive order.
Obama appointed 6 members, not more than four of whom could be from the same political party:
• Co-chairs Alan Simpson (former Republican senator from Wyoming) and Erskine Bowles (former White House Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton)
• Republican Dave M. Cote of Honeywell International
• Democrats Andy Stern (former president of SEIU), Alice Rivlin (Brookings Institution; former director of CBO and OMB and Fed vice chair), Ann M. Fudge (former CEO of Young & Rubicam Brands), Bruce Reed (Chief of Staff to Joe Biden)
Of Obama’s appointees, you have two businesspeople, one from a defense contractor (Cote) and one with a history in consumer goods (Fudge). Bruce Feed used to head the Democratic Leadership Coalition, the group of corporatist Third Way-type Democrats that ushered in the changes to the Democratic Party manifest in the Clinton years. Alice Rivlin is a noted austerity shill and opponent of social insurance programs. Out of Obama’s appointees, the only one with any liberal credibility at all would be Andy Stern. However, Andy Stern was also frequently criticized by others in the labor movement for being too willing to make concessions to corporate America, and his post-SEIU career has given warrant to such beliefs.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was able to appoint three members, all of whom had to be current members of the Senate. His appointees were Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND).
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was able to appoint three members, all of whom had to be current members of the Senate. His appointees were Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID).
Speaker Pelosi was able to appoint three members, all of whom had to be current members of the House. Her appointees were Rep. John Spratt, Rep. Xavier Becerra, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky.
House Minority Leader John Boehner was able to appoint three members, all of whom had to be current members of the House. His appointees were Rep. Paul Ryan, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, and Rep. Dave Camp.
Let's pause for a second and reflect on how anti-democratic this Commission was. At the time, the Democrats held the Senate 59 to 41. (Scott Brown had won the Massachusetts special election between the amendment vote and the executive order.) At the time, the Democrats held the House 254 to 178. (There were 257 Democrats after the 2008 election. Recent roll call votes in February 2010 have three empty seats.) In both cases, the electorate put between 1.4 and 1.5 times as many Democrats as Republicans. However, the Commission adhered to an even 1:1 ratio of elected officials in each body, in violation of the will of the electorate.
Now, let's look at the appointees. Harry Reid appointed two Blue Doggish senators and one moderately liberal senator who often serves as the mouthpiece of the administration. Nancy Pelosi appointed a member of the Progressive caucus, the most liberal member of the House leadership, and a Conservadem. Of course, neither Mitch McConnell nor John Boehner sought to nominate any “moderates” within their party.
If we look at the ideological ratings of all of these legislators through the DW Nominate system, we’ll (unsurprisingly) find that the Republican members of the Commission were more to the right than the Democratic members were to the left. The DW Nominate system ranks members of Congress on a spectrum from -1.000 (most liberal) to 1.000 (most conservative). The average rating of the House Democratic contingent was -0.485 whereas the average rating of the House Republican contingent was 0.567. The average rating of the Senate Democratic contingent was -0.311 whereas the average rating of the Senate Republican contingent was 0.570—a huge contrast. Taken together, the average Democratic rating was -0.398, and the average Republican rating was -0.579.
In November 2010, the Commission released its preliminary plan. And (Surprise!) this "deficit reduction" plan sought to redistribute wealth upwards through regressive tax policy and a weakening of the social safety net. Paul Krugman has been one of the most vocal opponents of the austerity shills, so let's listen to him:
We’ve known for a long time, then, that nothing good would come from the commission. But on Wednesday, when the co-chairmen released a PowerPoint outlining their proposal, it was even worse than the cynics expected.
Start with the declaration of “Our Guiding Principles and Values.” Among them is, “Cap revenue at or below 21% of G.D.P.” This is a guiding principle? And why is a commission charged with finding every possible route to a balanced budget setting an upper (but not lower) limit on revenue?
Matters become clearer once you reach the section on tax reform. The goals of reform, as Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson see them, are presented in the form of seven bullet points. “Lower Rates” is the first point; “Reduce the Deficit” is the seventh.
So how, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?
Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans — the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest — and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.
….
Let’s turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that’s what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?
The answer is no, for a number of reasons — including the point that working until you’re 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.
But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it’s doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.
It’s no mystery what has happened on the deficit commission: as so often happens in modern Washington, a process meant to deal with real problems has been hijacked on behalf of an ideological agenda. Under the guise of facing our fiscal problems, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson are trying to smuggle in the same old, same old — tax cuts for the rich and erosion of the social safety net.
That last point--"tax cuts for the rich and erosion of the social safety net"--has been the main goal of the austerity shills. If you doubt that, look at how S&B's BS plans keep
moving to the right even as the deficit is shrinking.
For an overview of the recommendations in the BS plan, go here.
Speaker Pelosi condemned the Simpson-Bowles plan in no uncertain language at first:
This proposal is simply unacceptable. Any final proposal from the commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren’s economic security as well as for our nation’s fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare. And it must strengthen America’s middle class families–under siege for the last decade, and unable to withstand further encroachment on their economic security.
Her office quickly backtracked, noting that the plan did not meet her standards of job creation, deficit reduction and Social Security preservation "at this time." We'll get to see her
backtrack even more as this narrative continues.
The Commission released its final draft plan on December 1, 2010, and put it to a vote two days later. The final vote was 11 to 7, failing to gain the 14 votes necessary to issue a final report (as established by the executive order). Bowles, Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Cote, Durbin, Fudge, Gregg, Rivlin, Simpson, and Spratt voted for it. Baucus, Becerra, Camp, Hensarling, Ryan, Schakowsky, and Stern.
Opposition came from the conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats of the House, the only Obama appointee with ties to labor, and Max Baucus. Dick Durbin, who is often seen as a liberal, voted for it. All of the Republicans from the Senate voted for it, and all of Obama’s appointees except for Andy Stern (5 out of the 6) voted for it.
Obama has since praised the Simpson-Bowles plan, but with reservations. Was he concerned with the cuts to Social Security and Medicare or the elimination of various tax credits upon which working families depend? Of course not:
"They wanted ... defense cuts that were steeper than I felt comfortable with as commander in chief," he said.
Debt Ceiling "Crisis," Budget Control Act, and the Creation of Sequestration
Now, let’s fast-forward to July 2011, when the Obama administration agreed to negotiate with House Republicans about raising the debt ceiling. Normally, the majority party will vote for the debt ceiling increase, and the minority party will vote against it—and this pattern happens regardless of which party is the majority and which, the minority. However, divided government makes that a bit trickier, especially when you have a Congress filled with anti-government zealots.
Obama, however, saw this crisis as an opportunity for the “grand bargain” he had wanted since the beginning of his presidency:
The sermon the president had heard that morning was a stirring Old Testament account of Jacob dreaming of a ladder that stretched to heaven. Sometimes, the pastor had said, “the best adventures occur when we venture into unmarked terrain.” Obama was in a similar frame of mind. Against the vehement advice of many Democrats, including some of his own advisers, Obama was pursuing a compromise with his ideological opponents, a “grand bargain” that would move into unmarked territory, beyond partisan divides, pushing both parties to places they did not want to go. Now might be the moment.
The
passage above came from a Washington Post play-by-play of the days of negotiations in July 2011. The tone of the article reflects the agenda of the WaPo editorial board, which fetishizes the "grand bargain" even more than Obama does. The details that the article provides, rather than the spin it sometimes puts on them, are of great importance to our narrative of the quest for a "brand bargain" and the perverse commitment to austerity.
Obama was willing to make a deal that traded $1.2 trillion in agency cuts, chained CPI, and a hike in the Medicare eligibility age for $800 trillion in new revenue. But that $800 trillion in revenue wasn’t necessarily $800 trillion--or even really revenue.
In Boehner’s offer Friday night, the taxes came with strings attached. The Republicans wanted Obama to give up plans to raise the tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans, now set at 35 percent. Instead, they wanted that rate to go down. They also wanted to preserve low rates for investment income — one of the biggest perks for the wealthy in the tax code — and establish a blanket exemption from U.S. taxes for corporate profits earned overseas.
Another key caveat: Much of the $800 billion would have to come from overhauling the tax code — not from higher tax rates. The Republicans believed lower rates and a simpler code would generate new revenue by discouraging cheating and spurring economic growth. If the White House would agree to count that money, the Republican leaders said, then they might have a deal.
That last condition was a problem. For years, Democrats have mocked the Republican argument that tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting the economy, an assertion for which evidence is scant. Many independent budget experts say the effect, if it exists, would be almost impossible to measure and useless in crafting a budget. Fiscal “snake oil,” some Democrats say.
Republicans wanted to get the revenue through the comical magic called "dynamic scoring," in which you just assume that your tax cuts will create fantastic economic growth and score things accordingly. And Obama was willing to concede and even got Pelosi and Reid on board to try to sell the deal to their caucuses. You know it's bad when Obama loyalist Jonathan Chait wrote an
article in NY Mag called "How Obama Tried to Sell Out Liberalism."
While Obama was trying to sell out seniors, a little over a third of the Democratic caucus--70 members--signed onto a letter by Donna Edwards (MD-04) opposing Social Security cuts. The letter affirmed, "Cutting Social Security’s already modest benefits is unacceptable and we will reject any legislation that extends the chained CPI to Social Security, veterans and disability, or children’s benefits.”
50 of the signers of Edwards's letter are still in the House. Ed Markey, formerly of MA-05, is now in the Senate:
Robert Brady (PA) , Rep. Corrine Brown (FL), G.K. Butterfield (NC), Andre Carson (IN), Kathy Castor (FL), Judy Chu (CA), Donna Christensen (VI), Yvette Clarke (NY), Emanuel Cleaver (MO), John Conyers (MI), Elijah Cummings (MD), Danny Davis (IL), Peter DeFazio (OR), Rosa DeLauro (CT), Ted Deutch (FL), Keith Ellison (MN), Eliot Engel (NY), Sam Farr (CA), Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI), Alcee Hastings (FL), Mike Honda (CA), Rush Holt (NJ), Al Green (FL), Gene Green (TX), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Luis Gutierrez (IL), Barbara Lee (CA), John Lewis (IL), Carolyn Maloney (NY), Jim McDermott (WA), Doris Matsui (DA), Carolyn McCarthy (NY), Jim McGovern (MA), Gwen Moore (WI), Jerry Nadler (NY), Grace Napolitano (CA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Frank Pallone (NJ), Jim Pascrell (NJ), Chellie Pingree (ME), Nick Rahall (WV), Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA), Bobby Rush (IL), Gregorio Sablan (NMI), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Bobby Scott (VA), Louise Slaughter (NY), Mike Thompson (CA), Paul Tonko (NY), Maxine Waters (CA)
Thankfully, the negotiations between Obama and Boehner collapsed. The “solution” to the debt ceiling crisis ended up being the
Budget Control Act of 2011.
The Budget Control Act specified $917 billion in cuts over 10 years (implemented via caps on discretionary spending) in exchange for the initial debt limit increase of $900 billion. $21 billion of these cuts were to be applied to the FY2012 budget.
The Budget Control Act also established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (“super committee”) to produce deficit reduction legislation by November 23rd that would cut at least $1.5 trillion over the next ten years and would be passed by December 23rd with full immunity from the filibuster.
As a threat, the BCA stipulated if Congress failed to produce a bill with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts, then Congress could grant a $1.2 trillion debt ceiling increase but not without triggering across-the-board cuts as of January 2013, applied to mandatory and discretionary spending in the years 2013 to 2021, of the difference between $1.2 trillion and the amount of deficit reduction achieved. Some programs were exempt: Social Security, Medicaid, civil and military employee pay, and certain veterans programs. Medicare benefits would be limited to a 2% reduction. This is what we call “sequestration”—or, ignoring grammar rules of the English language, the “sequester.” As I noted earlier, Jack Lew and Gene Sperling were the fathers of sequestration.
On August 1, 2011, the House passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 by a vote of 269 to 161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted in favor of it. 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans voted against it. The Democratic caucus, as you can see, split evenly. The bulk of the opposition came from the Progressive Caucus.
Tammy Baldwin (formerly WI-02), Chris Murphy (CT-05), and Ed Markey (MA-05) all voted against it while in the House and are now in the Senate. (Congratulations to them!) New Senate additions Mazie Hirono (HI-02) and Martin Heinrich (NM-01), however, voted for it.
17 of the 95 Democratic opponents of the Budget Control Act have since retired or lost re-election. Gary Ackerman (NY-05), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Hansen Clarke (MI-13), Bob Filner (CA-51), Barney Frank (MA-04), Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20), Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL-02), Larry Kissell (NC-08), Dennis Kucinich (OH-10), John Olver (MA-01), Silver Reyes (TX-16), Laura Richardson (CA-37), Pete Stark (CA-13), Betty Sutton (OH-13), Ed Towns (NY-10), Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
So there are 75 Democrats in the House today whom you can credit for opposing the legislation that paved the path for sequestration and austerity. When they speak about the damage of austerity, or sequestration in particular, most of them are not being hypocrites.
Xavier Becerra (CA-34), Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Bruce Braley (IA-01), Corinne Brown (FL-05), G. K. Butterfield (NC-01), Mike Capuano (MA-07), Andre Carson (IN-07), Judy Chu (CA-27), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Steve Cohen (TN-09), John Conyers (MI-13), Joe Crowley (NY-14), Elijah Cummings (MD-07), Pete DeFazio (OR-04), Diana DeGette (CO-01), Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), Mike Doyle (PA-14), Donna Edwards (MD-04), Keith Ellison (MN-05), Eliot Engel (NY-16), Marcia Fudge (OH-11), Al Green (TX-09), Raul Grijalva (AZ-03), Janice Hahn (CA-44), Alcee Hastings (FL-20), Rush Holt (NJ-12), Mike Honda (CA-17), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), John Larson (CT-01), Barbara Lee (CA-13), John Lewis (GA-05), David Loebsack (IA-02), Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), Ben Luján (NM-03), Carolyn Maloney (NY-12), Doris Matsui (CA-06), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Jim McDermott (WA-07),
Jim McGovern (MA-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jerry McNerney (CA-09), Brad Miller (NC-13), George Miller (CA-11), Jim Moran (VA-08), Jerry Nadler (NY-10), Grace Napolitano (CA-32), Richard Neal (MA-01), Frank Pallone (NJ-06), Ed Pastor (AZ-07), Donald Payne (NJ-10),
Gary Peters (MI-14), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), David Price (NC-04), Charlie Rangel (NY-13),
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40), Tim Ryan (OH-13), Linda Sánchez (CA-38), John Sarbanes (MD-03), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Bobby Scott (VA-03), Jose Serrano (NY-15), Louise Slaughter (NY-25), Adam Smith (WA-09), Bennie Thompson (MS-02), John Tierney (MA-06),
Paul Tonko (NY-20), Nydia Velázquez (NY-07), Peter Visclosky (IN-01), Maxine Waters (CA-43), Mel Watt (NC-12), Henry Waxman (CA-33), Pete Welch (VT-AL), John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Emanuel Cleaver, one of these Democratic opponents of the bill, remarked on Twitter, "This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see."
The following day, the Senate passed the Budget Control Act on a vote of 74 to 26. 46 Democratic caucus members and 28 Republicans voted in favor of the bill. 7 Democratic caucus members and 19 Republicans voted against it. The Republican opposition wanted the bill to impose even deeper cuts. One of the 7 Democratic defectors likely did, too—Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Only 6 actually opposed it from the left: Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tom Harkin (IA), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Bob Menendez (NJ), Jeff Merkley (OR), and Bernie Sanders (VT).
Nothing Super about the "Super Committee"
The unelected "super committee" tasked with designing a fast-tracked deficit reduction plan consisted of 3 representatives from each from Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, House Democrats, and House Republicans.
Patty Murray (D-WA), John Kerry (D-MA), and Max Baucus (D-MT) represented the Senate Democrats.
Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Pat Toomey (R-PA) represented the Senate Republicans.
Xavier Becerra (then CA-31, now CA-34, and vice chairman of the Democratic caucus), Jim Clyburn (SC-06 and the Assistant Democratic Party Leader), and Chris Van Hollen (MD-08) represented the House Democrats.
Jeb Hensarling (TX-05 and the chair of the House Republican Conference), Fred Upton (MI-06), and Dave Camp (MI-04) represented the House Republicans.
As anyone could have guessed, the "super committee" failed to meet its November deadline. Republicans refused to budge on taxes. Democrats, rightfully, were not as willing to destroy the social contract as Republicans and gut social insurance programs.
On November 21st, the Co-Chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, Representative Jeb Hensarling and Senator Patty Murray, released a statement lamenting the failure of the "super committee" to achieve its goal:
"After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline.
"Despite our inability to bridge the committee's significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation's fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve. We remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee’s work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy.
"We are deeply disappointed that we have been unable to come to a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement, but as we approach the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving, we want to express our appreciation to every member of this committee, each of whom came into the process committed to achieving a solution that has eluded many groups before us. Most importantly, we want to thank the American people for sharing thoughts and ideas and for providing support and good will as we worked to accomplish this difficult task"
In a press conference later that day, Obama insisted that he would
veto any effort to repeal the automatic sequestration cuts that would go into effect:
President Obama Monday evening blamed Republicans for the failure of the super committee to meet its deadline for a debt plan and warned that he will veto any attempt to eliminate the automatic spending cuts that go into effect with that failure.
In an appearance in the White House briefing room a little more than an hour after the committee officially conceded failure, the president said his answer to those who want to eliminate those cuts “is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.”
He added, “We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure."
This statement is telling. Remember it every time Obama blames Congress alone for the automatic cuts.
Cockroaches, Cher, and a New Try at Simpson-Bowles
As the saying goes, when the world is destroyed by a nuclear holocaust, there will be four survivors: cockroaches, Cher, and then Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles pushing for more austerity.
In March of last year, during the amendment process to the House budget (which, as we all know, was DOA in the Senate), horrible Blue Dog Jim Cooper (TN-05) and “Main Street” Republican Steve LaTourette (OH-14) introduced an amendment based on the never-finalized-because-it-got-voted-down-and-nobody-really-wants-it plan of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Although the elite pseudo-centrists in the media orgasm at Simpson-Bowles, Congress never has. The amendment managed to get only 38 votes—16 Republicans and 22 Democrats. Who were the 22 Democrats?
Rob Andrews (NJ-01), Dan Boren (OK-02), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), John Carney (DE-AL), Jim Clyburn (SC-06), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Jim Costa (CA-16), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Chaka Fattah (PA-02), Jim Himes (CT-04), Ron Kind (WI-03), Rick Larsen (WA-02), Dan Lipinski (IL-03), Ed Perlmutter (CO-07), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Jared Polis (CO-02), Mike Quigley (IL-05), Allyson Schwartz (PA-13), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Peter Visclosky (IN-01), Mel Watt (NC-12)
Most of these votes are not shocking. However, I was rather surprised to see Fattah and Watt on this list because both are members of the Progressive Caucus. Fattah represents Philadelphia and wins with comically large margins.
At this vote, we had the opportunity to see one of Nancy Pelosi's depressing-but-increasingly-common volte-faces. As I noted earlier, Pelosi sharply criticized the Simpson-Bowles plan in November 2010. Let's see what she had to say just a year and a half later:
"They advertised it as Simpson-Bowles, but they changed the spending and revenue provisions in it, and so it did not receive support on either side of the aisle because it was not a good idea," Pelosi said during her weekly press briefing in the Capitol.
"I felt fully ready to vote for that [Simpson-Bowles] myself, thought it was not even a controversial thing. But it is not what that is," she added. "And swings of tens-of-billions of dollars mean something in terms of the lives of the American people."
Pressed if she would have supported Simpson-Bowles in its initial iteration, Pelosi said, "Yes, yes."
Her only complaint was that the Cooper-LaTourette amendment would not have raised as much revenue as the original plan because it locked in the Bush tax cuts. Her regard for Social Security, Medicare, and the economic security of middle-class families had vanished.
All I Want for Christmas is to Cut Your Benefits
After the 2012 election and into the first days of the new year came the negotiations over the “fiscal cliff,” a term that referred to the simultaneous start of the automatic “sequestration cuts,” end of the Bush tax cuts, and ends to a variety of other tax credits and provisions (e.g. the end of the payroll tax holiday). Obama renewed his push for a “grand bargain” with Congressional Republicans with back-and-forth offers with John Boehner.
Dylan Matthews of Wonkblog developed a handy chart of all of these offers and counteroffers.
Obama’s first offer (Nov. 29) consisted of $1.55 billion in new tax revenue; $350 billion in cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and other mandatory spending; $250 billion in discretionary cuts; $225 billion in interest savings; and $425 billion in stimulus and tax extenders.
Boehner’s first counter-offer (12/3) eliminated the stimulus, lowered the tax revenue portion by over $300 billion, raised the cuts to mandatory programs by over $650 billion, increased the discretionary cuts by $50 billion, and increased the interest savings by $100 billion.
Obama’s response offer (12/12) lowered the revenue ask to $1.4 trillion, keeping most of the frame intact. Boehner responded (12/15) with an offer of $1 trillion in revenue, $1 trillion in mandatory cuts, and $300 billion in interest savings.
The last of Obama’s offers (12/17) dropped the stimulus ask, lowered the tax ask to $1 trillion, and increased the cuts to mandatory programs by $375 billion.
In achieving such steep cuts to mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, Obama expressed willingness to raise the Medicare eligibility age and cut Social Security benefits through the adoption of chained CPI. Although after the election, OFA had used its mailing list to get people to lobby for ending the Bush tax cuts for all incomes above $250,000 (as Obama had previously said he’d do), Obama quickly backtracked from that with his ever-falling revenue ask.
Nancy Pelosi, as we saw earlier, had already transformed from a defender of seniors and working families to a champion of austerity. It, thus, was sadly unsurprising to see her give her blessing to Obama’s embrace of chained CPI:
But Pelosi wrapped both her arms around it Wednesday, insisting she does not regard it as a "cut."
"No, I don’t," she told reporters. "I consider it a strengthening of Social Security, but that’s neither here nor there."
There are times where cutting is a form of strengthening—cutting out extra verbiage in a paper, cutting out empty calories in your diet. This is not one of those.
However, one month later, Nancy Pelosi was pretending that she never really supported the proposal:
"It was really to call the bluff of the Republicans' tactic," Pelosi said during a small gathering with reporters on Friday. "At what figure will you raise taxes on the rich? At what place do you keep moving the goalpost on entitlements?"
Not convincing.
Over half of the Senate Democratic caucus, back in September, had expressed their opposition to such cuts to Social Security:
“We will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package,” the senators said in a letter circulated by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the founder of the Senate Defending Social Security Caucus.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate’s No. 3 leader, signed the letter. So did Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.), who joined Sanders at a Capitol news conference.
Other senators who signed the letter are Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.).
According to the research of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, 96 out of the 191 Democrats in the 112th Congress were on record opposing the use of chained CPI. In order not to burden this post with more long lists, you can check out that list
here.
The negotiations on a "grand bargain" ultimately collapsed--for the good of the country, and we ended up with the "fiscal cliff" deal. The deal had some good, some bad, and some ugly in it, and many progressives thought the president could have gotten a better deal.
Here are some of the key provisions:
• Higher taxes on individuals earning $400,000 and on families making $450,000 or more. Under that threshold, the Bush-era tax cuts will be permanent for all but the wealthiest households. The $450,000 threshold for families is a significant increase from Democrats’ initial proposal to raise taxes on Americans making $250,000 or more, but it is lower than Republicans’ earlier proposal to raise taxes on households making $1 million or more.
• Higher tax rates on capital gains and dividends for wealthier households. Taxes on capital gains and dividends will be held at their current levels of 15 percent for individuals making less than $400,000 and households with income of less than $450,000. They will rise to 20 percent for individual taxpayers and for households above those thresholds.
• One-year extension to unemployment insurance. Emergency unemployment benefits will be extended for a year. The extension was a priority for President Obama and congressional Democrats.
• Personal exemptions phased out for individuals making over $250,000. Personal exemptions will be phased out and itemized deductions will be limited for taxpayers making over $250,000 and families earning more than $300,000.
• 40 percent estate tax. The estate tax will rise to 40 percent from its current 35 percent level, with the first $5 million in assets exempted. Democrats had earlier sought a higher increase to 45 percent and a lower exemption of $3.5 million.
It also contained a lot of
corporate welfare.
Perhaps most importantly to our discussion of "grand bargains," it delayed sequestration by two months, setting a new looming deadline at the end of February.
A New Swing and a New Miss at a Grand Bargain
In February, in the wake of the new looming deadline, Keith Ellison, Raúl Grijalva, and Jan Schakowsky, John Conyers, and Donna Edwards organized a new letter to the President opposing benefit cuts:
“A commitment to keeping the middle-class strong and reducing poverty requires a commitment to keeping Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid strong,” the Members said in the letter. “We urge you to reject any proposals to cut benefits, and we look forward to working with you to enact approaches that instead rely on economic growth and more fair revenue-raising policies to solve our fiscal problems.”
Obama doesn’t only have to reject such proposals—he has to stop making them.
102 additional members (a majority of the caucus) signed onto the letter:
Ron Barber, Karen Bass, Ami Bera, Suzanne Bonamici, Robert Brady, Bruce Braley, Corrine Brown, Julia Brownley, Cheri Bustos, G. K. Butterfield, Lois Capps, Tony Cardenas, Matthew Cartwright, Kathy Castor, Donna Christensen, Judy Chu, David Cicilline, Yvette Clarke, Lacy Clay, Emanuel Cleaver, Steve Cohen, Joe Courtney, Elijah Cummings, Danny Davis, Peter DeFazio, Rosa DeLauro, Ted Deutch, Tammy Duckworth, Donna Edwards, Keith Ellison, Anna Eshoo, Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Lois Frankel, Marcia Fudge, John Garamendi, Alan Grayson, Al Green, Gene Green, Luis Gutierrez, Janice Hahn, Alcee Hastings, Rubén Hinojosa, Rush Holt, Mike Honda, Jared Huffman, Sheila Jackson Lee, Hakeem Jeffries, Eddie B. Johnson, Hank Johnson, Marcy Kaptur, Daniel Kildee, Ann Kirkpatrick, Jim Langevin, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, David Loebsack, Zoe Lofgren, Alan Lowenthal, Michelle Lujan Grisham, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn Maloney, Ed Markey, Doris Matsui, Jim McDermott, James McGovern, Grace Meng, Mike Michaud, Gwen Moore, Jerry Nadler, Gloria Negrette McLeod, Rick Nolan, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ed Pastor, Donald Payne, Chellie Pingree, Mark Pocan, Charlie Rangel, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Bobby Rush, Tim Ryan, Gregorio Sablan, Linda Sanchez, Bobby Scott, José Serrano, Carol Shea-Porter, Krysten Sinema, Albio Sires, Louise Slaughter, Jackie Speier, Mark Takano, Bennie Thompson, John Tierney, Dina Titus, Paul Tonko, Juan Vargas, Marc Veasey, Nydia Velázquez, Maxine Waters, Mel Watt, Henry Waxman, Pete Welch, Frederica Wilson
Note, however, that Fattah and Watt voted for Simpson-Bowles earlier, which cut Social Security.
Alan Grayson and Mark Takano organized a more strongly worded letter:
That’s why we write to let you know that we will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits -- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.
The original signers of the letter were the following representatives:
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Rick Nolan (D-MN), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA), Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), and Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA)
You can find additional co-signers and those who have made parallel statements on the link above.
On February 5th, Keith Ellison introduced the Progressive Caucus’s sequestration replacement legislation, called the Balancing Act. It closed tax loopholes, cut Pentagon waste, and invested money in the economy for education and infrastructure.
It began with 14 co-sponsors: Judy Chu (CA-27), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Lacy Clay (MO-01), Steve Cohen (TN-09), John Conyers (MI-13), Alan Grayson (FL-09), Raul Grijalva (AZ-03), Luis Gutierrez (IL-04), Eddie Johnson (TX-30), Barbara Lee (CA-13), Ed Markey (MA-05), Jim McDermott (WA-07), Jerry Nadler (NY-10), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
It never got a vote.
On February 21st, the White House ignored such a plea and released its sequestration replacement plan: $4 trillion of (cumulative) deficit reduction including the last offer he had made to John Boehner.
That plan included--again--chained CPI, referred to here as "superlative CPI." You can read Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, and Robert Reich to disabuse yourself of the idea that there is anything "superlative" about the chained CPI. It is, plain and simple, a benefit cut to Social Security recipients, including orphans, widows, and seniors. When pensions have been disappearing, 401(k) plans are risky because of their dependence on the market, and interest rates for savings accounts are low, cutting Social Security makes no sense.
Sequestration itself does not touch Social Security. However, Obama's sequestration replacement plan cuts Social Security by $130 billion, more than it cuts defense spending. The defense cuts in sequestration were $600 billion over ten years. Obama dropped that to $100 billion and, one could say, took $130 billion from Social Security to help fund the difference.
Obama's sequestration plan also called for means-testing Medicare. The phrase "ask the more fortunate to pay more" wasn't a reference to making the payroll tax more progressive. In order to achieve substantive savings, the threshold for labeling someone "more fortunate" would have to get pushed low. The plan also calls $100 billion in extra revenue from the change to chained CPI. Chained CPI is not just a benefit cut: it's also a regressive tax increase.
Thankfully, Harry Reid ignored Obama's calls for benefit cuts and regressive tax increases.
On February 28th, the Senate voted on the Senate Democrats’ plan to replace sequestration cuts. That plan consisted of both revenue increases (Buffett rule, closing loopholes for offshoring) and spending cuts (defense, crop subsidies). The Senate plan, despite having a majority, could not pass a cloture vote and failed—51 in favor, 49 against. Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Mark Pryor (D-AR)—all of whom are up for re-election in red states—joined the Republicans in voting against cloture. Harry Reid voted against it—for procedural reasons. (If he ever wants to bring the bill back up again, he has to vote against it.)
With no successful legislation to repeal them or replace them, sequestration cuts went into effect on March 1st.
Budgets are Statements of Moral Principles
The quest for the "Grand Bargain" continued the following month during budget season.
In the budget document released by the White House on April 11th, Obama demonstrated that he still wanted his "Grand Bargain" even if nobody else did:
The Budget does all of these things as part of a comprehensive plan that reduces the deficit and puts the Nation on a sound fiscal course. Every new initiative in the plan is fully paid for, so they do not add a single dime to the deficit. The Budget also incorporates the President’s compromise offer to House Speaker Boehner to achieve another $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction in a balanced way. When combined with the deficit reduction already achieved, this will allow us to exceed the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, while growing the economy and strengthening the middle class. By including this compromise proposal in the Budget, the President is demonstrating his willingness to make tough choices and his seriousness about finding common ground to further reduce the deficit.
John Boehner had rejected the same offer in December and in February. But whereas Obama may be willing to concede on many points in negotiations, he just can't seem to let go of the idea of his granny-starving "grand bargain."
When politicians speak of "tough choices," they are just pretending to feel bad about the policies that they actively champion. Think of it as a bit of Oprah--they feel your pain--even though, unlike Oprah, they're the ones causing it.
Thankfully, the Senate and House Democrats did not share Obama's fetishes. The Senate budget was largely a centrist, "status quo" budget. Ezra Klein of Wonkblog wrote the following of it:
Sen. Patty Murray’s budget, by contrast, is both a more liberal and a more traditionally conservative document. Where Ryan sees the deficit as an opportunity for historic change, Murray treats it as an economic problem that requires a modest set of spending cuts and tax increases to solve. Where Ryan’s proposed deficit-reduction path is fast and severe, Murray moves slowly and cautiously. Where Ryan wants to remake the state and balance the budget, Murray just wants to stabilize and reduce the debt.
The Senate budget turned off sequestration with an equal mix of spending cuts and revenue increases, and it shielded Social Security and Medicare benefits from cuts. (It did, however, leave some room for weaseling as it used privatization, not cuts, as a foil.) The budget also included $100 billion in economic stimulus---much less than what is needed but better than nothing.
The Senate budget passed 50 to 49. Mark Begich (D-AK), Max Baucus (D-MT), Kay Hagan (D-NC), and Mark Pryor (D-AR) all voted against it. Begich, Hagan, and Pryor all since then have signed the Harkin-Sanders resolution in opposition to chained CPI, which bodes well.
The other Senators to sign onto that resolution (in addition to the titular Tom Harkin and Bernie Sanders) were the following:
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Al Franken (D-MN), Kirsten Gilibrand (D-NY), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jack Reed (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D - HI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
The House had the opportunity to vote on three budgets from the Democratic caucus: the Senate budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget. I'll focus on the former and the latter.
28 Democrats opposed their party's own budget. They should not be trusted.
Ron Barber (AZ-02), John Barrow (GA-12), Ami Bera (CA-07), Julia Brownley (CA-26), G. K. Butterfield (NC-01), Cheri Bustos (IL-17), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Jim Costa (CA-16), Suzan Delbene (WA-01), Bill Enyart (IL-12), Bill Foster (IL-11), Pete Gallego (TX-23), Joe Garcia (FL-26), Jim Himes (CT-04), Ron Kind (WI-03), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Ann Kuster (NH-02), David Loebsack (IA-02), Sean Maloney (NY-18), Jim Matheson (UT-04), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Patrick Murphy (FL-18), Bill Owens (NY-21), Scott Peters (CA-52), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Raul Ruiz (CA-36), Bradley Schneider (IL-10), Krysten Sinema (AZ-09)
The Congressional Progressive Caucus offered a budget (the Back to Work budget) that marked the clearest opposition to austerity and the misguided fetish for "grand bargains." The Back to Work budget combined $2.1 trillion in stimulus and investment from 2013 to 2015, including a $425 billion infrastructure program, a $340 billion middle-class tax cut, a $450 billion public-works initiative, and $179 billion in state and local aid. The funding from this investment came from tax increases on the rich and corporations as well as cuts to the defense budget:
Fair Individual Tax
• Immediately allows Bush tax cuts to expire for families earning over $250K
• Higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires (from 45% to 49%)
• Taxes income from investments the same as income from wages
Fair Corporate Tax
• Ends corporate tax bias toward moving jobs and profits overseas
• Enacts a financial transactions tax
• Reduces deductions for corporate jets, meals, and entertainment
Defense
• Returns Pentagon spending to 2006 levels, focusing on modern security needs
The Back to Work Budget opposed any and all cuts to social insurance programs, and it included a public option, a carbon tax, and the elimination of corporate tax subsidies for oil, gas, and coal companies.
The progressive Back to Work Budget failed 84 to 327. 84 Democrats voted for it, 102 voted against it, and one (Gloria Negrette McLeod) simply voted “present.”
Here are the 84 supporters of the Back to Work budget:
Rob Andrews (NJ-01), Karen Bass (CA-37), Joyce Beatty (OH-03), Xavier Becerra (CA-34), Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Bob Brady (PA-01), Corinne Brown (FL-05), G. K. Butterfield (NC-01), Mike Capuano (MA-07), Tony Cárdenas (CA-29), Andre Carson (IN-07), Matt Cartwright (PA-17), Kathy Castor (FL-14), Judy Chu (CA-27), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Lacy Clay (MO-01), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), James Clyburn (SC-06), Steve Cohen (TN-09), John Conyers (MI-13), Elijah Cummings (MD-07), Danny Davis (IL-07), Mike Doyle (PA-14), Donna Edwards (MD-04), Keith Ellison (MN-05), Sam Farr (CA-20), Chaka Fattah (PA-02), Marcia Fudge (OH-11), Alan Grayson (FL-09), Al Green (TX-09), Raul Grijalva (AZ-03), Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04), Janice Hahn (CA-44), Alcee Hastings (FL-20), Brian Higgins (NY-26), Rush Holt (NJ-12), Mike Honda (CA-17), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Eddie Johnson (TX-30), Barbara Lee (CA-13), John Lewis (GA-05), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), Ben Luján (NM-03), Stephen Lynch (MA-08), Carolyn Maloney (NY-12), Ed Markey (MA-05), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Jim McDermott (WA-07), Jim McGovern (MA-02), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Jim Moran (VA-08), Jerry Nadler (NY-10), Grace Napolitano (CA-32), Rick Nolan (MN-08), Frank Pallone (NJ-06), Ed Pastor (AZ-07), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Mark Pocan (WI-02), David Price (NC-04), Nick Rahall (WV-03), Charlie Rangel (NY-13), Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40), Bobby Rush (IL-01), Linda Sánchez (CA-38), John Sarbanes (MD-03), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Jose Serrano (NY-15), Albio Sires (NJ-08), Louise Slaughter (NY-25), Mark Takano (CA-41), John Tierney (MA-06), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Niki Tsongas (MA-03), Juan Vargas (CA-51), Marc Veasey (TX-33), Nydia Velázquez (NY-07), Maxine Waters (CA-43), Mel Watt (NC-12), Pete Welch (VT-AL), John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Strangely, just one year prior, Andrews, Fattah, and Watt had supported a plan to the right of the original Simpson-Bowles. The credibility of their opposition to austerity must be questioned.
The Answer That's Hiding in Plain Sight
However, there is no reason that we need to live with the cuts to programs like Head Start, Meals on Wheels, the park service, etc., enacted by sequestration. When Congress creates a law, Congress can repeal that law. The House Republicans have been trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act--and replace it with nothing--ever since they gained the majority. Thankfully, the House Republicans have failed. But if John Boehner believes that Congress should be judged by how many laws it repeals, then he should start taking a second look at the Budget Control Act.
On February 28th, progressive Democrat John Conyers introduced legislation to cancel sequestration—not repeal it and replace it with equivalent cuts. The legislation is simple and direct:
Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.
36 Democrats signed it. One, Ed Markey, is now in the Senate. Two, Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC) and Donna Christensen (Virgin Islands), cannot vote. Here are the other 33 who deserve respect as the strongest opponents of austerity. Is your representative on the list? If not, call his/her office and ask why not.
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Corrine Brown (FL-05), Matt Cartwright (PA-17),
Steve Cohen (TN-09), Elijah Cummings (MD-07), Danny Davis (IL-07), Keith Ellison (MN-05), Alan Grayson (FL-09), Raul Grijalva (AZ-03), Alcee Hastings (FL-20), Brian Higgins (NY-26), Rush Holt (NJ-12), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Barbara Lee (CA-13), John Lewis (GA-05), Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Jim McGovern (MA-02), Jim Moran (VA-08), Donald Payne (NJ-10), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Mark Pocan (WI-02), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01),
Mark Takano (CA-41), Juan Vargas (CA-51), Marc Veasey (TX-33), Filemon Vela (TX-34), Maxine Waters (CA-43), Frederica Wilson (FL-24)
Bonamici, Cartwright, Grayson, Jeffries, Lujan Grisham, Pocan, Shea-Porter, Takano, Vargas, Veasey, and Vela are all part of the freshman class.
Danny Davis, Brian Higgins, Sheila Jackson Lee, Hank Johnson, and Frederica Wilson had all previously voted for the Budget Control Act. Treat them with caution.
Many progressive representatives have not yet signed. Donna Edwards and Jerry Nadler come to mind. I don't see why they would oppose it.
Concluding Thoughts
The quest for a "grand bargain" will likely continue, and hopefully, it will continue to fail. The narrative above should help in determining who our best allies in Congress are in the fight against austerity and for more equitable (and rational) economic policy.
If politicians and the elite "centrists" of the media still want tightened belts, they should just hire a dominatrix, and stop bothering the economy with their fetishes.