Debt Ceiling Debate: Democrats Won't Even Vote For Their Own Ideas!

-By Warner Todd Huston

Late on Tuesday the GOP led House of Representatives defeated a vote to raise the debt ceiling. This is not a surprising vote, to be sure, but the odd part of this deal is that some Democrats voted with Republicans even after sending a letter to Obama only a month ago saying they supported raising it.

In mid April, 114 Democrats sent a letter to President Obama pledging their support for a "clean extension of the debt ceiling."

These 114 Democrats agreed with Obama that the debt ceiling needed to be raised without adding spending cuts to the bill and that anyone that wants to force spending cuts to be added to the bill would be "willfully risking the full faith and credit of the United States of America." It was an emergency, they claimed.

Yet, as today came and the first vote to raise the debt ceiling without adding any spending cuts to the bill was called, 29 of those very Democrats that signed the letter voted against a clean raise of the debt ceiling. Another five voted "present" essentially ducking the vote. So, in just one month these Democrats went from claiming that it was a financial emergency to vote "yes" on a clean raising of the debt ceiling to vote "no" on just such a bill!

In fact, 82 Democrats voted with the Republicans to down a clean raise of the debt ceiling after months of of their party claiming that a clean raise is what was needed.

How exactly do you deal with a party that changes its mind every month or so?

Democrat letter signer vote list:

Voting "Present":
1. Doggett (Texas)
2. Hinchey (N.Y.)
3. Johnson (Ga.)
4. Kaptur (Ohio)
5. Meeks (N.Y.)

Voting "No":
1. Baca (Calif.)
2. Baldwin (Wis.)
3. Boswell (Iowa)
4. Brown (Fla.)
5. Butterfield (N.C.)
6. Capps (Calif.)
7. Carnahan (Mo.)
8. Cicilline (R.I.)
9. Conyers (Mich.)
10. Costello (Ill.)
11. Critz (Pa.)
12. Cummings (Md.)
13. DeFazio (Ore.)
14. Deutch (Fla.)
15. Hastings (Fla.)
16. Inslee (Wash.)
17. Israel (N.Y.)
18. Keating (Mass.)
19. Lewis (GA.)
20. Peterson (Minn.)
21. Polis (Colo.)
22. Rangel (N.Y.)
23. Richardson (Calif.)
24. Ryan (Ohio)
25. Slaughter (N.Y.)
26. Sutton (Ohio)
27. Thompson (Calif.)
28. Wu (Ore.)
29. Scott (Ga.)

Comments

Leave a comment
  • On Tuesday, house republicans rigged their own proposed 2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit. Those Democrats voted against the GOP's proposed increase because they understand the need to make reasonable spending cuts and caps in order to get our fiscal house in order.

    This was a show vote. Nothing more, nothing less. House repubs put this bill on the floor for the purpose of seeing it fail. Talk about a political charade and obstructionist partisanship. They are making a mockery of our legislative system by wasting floor time and taxpayer money by intentionally introducing an incomplete bill they know will fail just so they can go on talk shows and make their false talking points about how Democrats voted against an unfinished bill.

    When republicans get serious about talking about cutting and revenues and stop putting on their political theatrics, then maybe we can compromise and get something viable actually passed.

  • In reply to Crowned:

    "Those Democrats voted against the GOP's proposed increase because they understand the need to make reasonable spending cuts and caps in order to get our fiscal house in order."

    What planet are YOU on? What an outrageous pile of lies that is. There isn't a Democrat in this country that doesn't want to increase spending on everything but national defense.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    What a brash generalization and it's just untrue.

    Democrats have come up with the novel idea of closing the tax loophole on big oil tax breaks and applying the savings to reduce the deficit. It's been estimated that eliminating tax breaks for oil companies could save taxpayers and the country 21 billion annually in savings and help to significantly reduce the deficit.

    Republicans lobbying and getting paid by big oil might not like it, but the economy and deficit will. So will everyday families that are being gauged by soaring fuel prices.

    Are you in favor of closing the door on tax breaks that benefit big oil and diverting that 21 bill in savings per year to reduce the deficit?

  • In reply to Crowned:

    Democrats are looking only to destroy business, not help any deficit.

    Want to help "soaring fuel prices"? Drill HERE, drill NOW. Ah, but Obama is doing his best to destroy our energy sector so we don't want that, do we?

    You want to save money? Shut down the dept. of Education,shutter the hundreds of useless, duplicate regulatory agencies. Fire thousands of federal and state workers that are do-nothing burdens on the system.

    Still, I agree with eliminating subsidies. End all of them. End subsidies to farmers, end them to businesses, end them to universities and colleges. Also end them to Fanny and Freddy (in fact end Fannie and Freddy). Get the treasury out of the car business.

    But, while you natter on about the pennies you think Obama's anti-business agenda will "save" let the Republicans take an ax to federal spending and get rid of multiple layers of government.

    And I hope your paycheck for your comments here from Obama's ministry of truth clears before the cutting begins.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    I'm saddened by your black and white thinking.

    Democrats

  • In reply to Crowned:

    There is simply no way at all to argue that Democrats care anything about small business. Obama is the most anti-business president this nation has ever had (yes, even worse than FDR). In fact, he's worse than FDR because he's a crony capitalist as long as his support equates to full government control of the big business in question.

    Obama has used his regulatory powers to punish business since day one, especially small businesses. PLAs, the NLRB, his bailouts meant to put business under the thumb of Obama (kind of like a fascist economic system, that), every move Obama has made has been to damage business and hurt small businesses most especially.

    As to your claim that drilling would "destroy every last national park and coastal region," well, what can one say of such silliness? Even the feared damage that was supposed to have occurred by the BP Oil spill is nothing compared to the propaganda so liberally spread by enviro-wacko fearmongers.

    Further, your fantasy of the "green sector" is laughable. No nation on this planet that has heavily invested in such fantasyland "technologies" as greenism have found it to pay off. ALL of them have found their green expenses to be wasted, returning nothing of note, and driving jobs away.

    There is no such thing a "green technology" at this time. Am I against the R&D to discover any? No. Am I foolish enough to pin our entire energy policy on this green energy fantasy? Again, no.

    Still, you are right that drilling here would not immediately answer our energy needs. This, of course, is the Democrats fault for putting the brakes on our energy sector decades ago. It will take decades to undo the damage the Dems have done to the energy sector. But, you also ignore the simple fact that our drilling will affect energy prices across the world. Prices will come down as soon as we begin drilling. You act as if our efforts would occur in a vacuum. It would not.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Hello Sir, if I can have your undivided attention for a minute I would like to ask you a question. If I had the power to show you evidence, visual proof that some of your comments are wrong would you listen? If I presented to you my humble findings that speak the truth seen though your own eyes, with not the intention of calling you a liar but rather a smart man who has not yet discovered what he has not been seeking, can you accept the truth? I want you to answer these questions honesty, to the depths of your soul. I want you to be acceptable to truths that may contradict your word. For we are only human and can never know all answers, nor can we place out feet in millions of others shoes. To be a truly intelligent man, we must sometimes admit we are wrong. Are you strong enough for the challenge?

  • In reply to Crowned:

    As you said, these Dems said they supported a "clean extension of the debt ceiling". But the bill that was brought up for a vote was not a "clean" bill. It included this "finding" ...

    "The Congress finds that the President

  • In reply to CrazyLiberal:

    "So, a vote for this bill would have been a vote saying that it is because of Obama's 2012 budget that the debt limit has to be increased."

    And nothing could be more true.

    However, I agree that every Congress in the last 80 years added their hand to this debacle. We need to end the rape of the taxpayers now.

Leave a comment