All But 32 House Dems Back Bad Wars, Big Banks

posted by John Nichols on 06/16/2009 @ 6:48pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (41)

Subscribe Now

Thirty-two Democrats broke with the Obama administration and House Democratic leaders Tuesday to oppose a $106 billion supplemental appropriation to maintain the occupation of Iraq, surge more troops into the quagmire that is Afghanistan, and fund the International Monetary Fund's anti-social policies of forcing developing countries to sacrifice programs for the poor in order to bail out big banks.

But that wasn't enough to block approval of the measure.

The final vote was 226 in favor of the supplemental, 202 against.

The bill passed with Democratic votes -- 221 Democrats backed it, along with 5 Republicans.

The spending scheme was opposed by 170 Republicans. Most, although not all of the Republican "no" votes were cast for the wrong reasons of knee-jerk opposition to the Obama administration, foreign aid and environmental programs. (There were the usual exceptions, such as Ron Paul of Texas, John Duncan of Tennessee and Walter Jones of North Carolina.)

Joining the Republicans in voting "no" were the 32 Democrats, many of the them closely associated with Progressive Democrats of America, which aggressively lobbied against the supplemental.

The Democrats who broke with the administration were:

Arizona's Raul Grijalva.

Californian's Sam Farr, Bob Filner, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Brad Sherman, Jackie Speier, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey.

Colorado's Jared Polis.

Florida's Alan Grayson.

Maine's Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree.

Maryland's Donna Edwards.

Massachusetts' Michael Capuano, Jim McGovern, John Tierney and Nikki Tsongas.

Michigan's John Conyers.

Minnesota's Keith Ellison.

New Hampshire's Carol Shea-Porter.

New Jersey's Donald Payne.

New York's Eric Massa and Jose Serrano.

Ohioans Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich.

Texan Lloyd Doggett.

Vermont's Peter Welch.

Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin.

Notable names on the list of "no" votes are those of new members, such as California's Speier, Colorado's Polis, Maine's Pingree, Maryland's Edwards, Minnesota's Ellison, New Hampshire's Shea-Porter, New York's Massa and Vermont's Welch, House freshmen and sophomores who resisted intense pressure on newer members -- who may still be looking for leadership assistance when it comes to committee assignments and reelection races -- to vote the administration line.

Their opposition to an exceptionally bad proposal was appropriate -- and perhaps even heroic in the face of threats by the administration and House leaders. But it was not sufficient to block an initiative that extends wars and global poverty.

Dozens of Democrats who were elected on anti-war platforms -- including 19 caucus members who opposed the supplemental when an earlier version came before the House in May -- cast disappointing votes. And those disappointing votes have consequences. Among the disappointing Democrats who caved to the pressure to "back the president" were members who have usually been in the anti-war camp, such as Hawaii's Neil Abercrombie and Illinoisans Jesse Jackson Jr. and Jan Schakowsky -- all of whom were early and enthusiastic backers of Obama's presidential campaign.

Now, they are backers of Obama's wars. Indeed, as Jane Hamsher, who waged a spirited campaign to get Democrats to oppose the supplemental observed after the overwhelming majority fell in line with another misguided president: "Yeah. It's a Democratic war now."

It's also the Democrats' bailout of some of the biggest banks in Europe. Those banks are in financial trouble because they made risky -- and ultimately unsustainable -- loans in Eastern Europe. But with an assist from the Obama administration and a Democratic Congress, the foreign banks will get a bailout, with U.S. tax dollars funneled through the IMF.

As Dean Baker explains:

The basic problem is simple. The West European bankers proved to be every bit as stupid as the Robert Rubin-Citigroup crew in dishing out loans. The main outlet for their bad loans was Eastern Europe, where they made enormous loans denominated in euros.

It is very difficult for the countries of Eastern Europe to maintain their exchange rates against the euro without large amounts of assistance. However, if they let their currencies fall against the euro, then the default rates on the loans from Western European banks will explode.

Of course West Europe is rich enough to bail out its own banks, but the governments in countries like France and Germany know that their people will not stand for this sort of handout. In steps the IMF...

With money from U.S. taxpayers, the IMF will protect the European banks, thus allowing the governments of France and Germany to spend precious resources on job-creation and social programs -- rather than bank bailouts.

And what do Americans who voted for Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress to end wars and focus on human needs rather than the demands of bank speculators get? Another $106 billion in useless debt.

Comments (41)

I do love reading Dean Baker.

On the issue of wars and bank bailouts, I long ago got past any impression that the Democrats were going to attempt to really do anything about either.

Posted by syfriendly at 06/16/2009 @ 6:45pm
"Thirty-two Democrats broke with the Obama administration"

"32"? Isn't that a BIT less than the Progressive Caucus, Mr Nichols?

Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 6:47pm
what would McCain have done?

Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 9:05pm
It's the ol' Nadir question. When is opposition worth it, when is it a narcissistic ploy, when is it a noble symbol, when is it a seed with a shot a growth, when is it strategically stupid? Etc.

Posted by winyahn at 06/16/2009 @ 9:30pm
Just, importantly, posed here as fact - not a healthy question.

Posted by winyahn at 06/16/2009 @ 9:32pm
Not interested in the IMF part, but the war part is outrageous. We had to suck it up two years ago because Boy King vetoed anything with a "timetable" for withdrawal and Lieberman was the Dem "majroity" in the Senate. But what's the excuse now? Two years later, the war is still illegal, people are still dying, and as far as I can see there's no plan to get the U.S. out of Iraq.

Meanwhile, all of the President's minions are busy repeating all of the official White House health care mantras. Sorry, but I'd rather save billions right now by stopping the illegal war, than worry about "controlling the spiraling cost of health care". Why must one person more die in the Iraq war? Answer that, Obama, and then maybe I'll have the patience to listen to your Stepford deputies shouting down demands for single payer.

Posted by RLawrence at 06/16/2009 @ 10:46pm
8 years into the US war v. the Vietnamese -- 1973 -- and we'd had years of demos, thousands jailed, tens of thousands fled to Canada, even Wall Streeters were marching.

8 years into the Af/Pak war, 6 years into the Iraq war and ... the Pentagon gets all it wants, only 32 Dems with the courage, sense & integrity to say no.

The great sigh of relief in DC continues, the laughter & backslapping in the halls of Congress & the Pentagon unabated: Thank God no draft.

Posted by sloper at 06/17/2009 @ 12:54am
Thank God no draft.

Posted by sloper at 06/17/2009 @ 12:54am

That's next.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 06:22am
Man, we sure are lucky Bush/Cheney still aren't running things and the Democrats are in power. Look at how different things are!

Posted by Citizen54 at 06/17/2009 @ 09:09am
Posted by Citizen54 at 06/17/2009 @ 09:09am | ignore this person | warn this person

I repeat: what would McCain have done?

Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2009 @ 09:12am
I repeat: what would McCain have done?

Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2009 @ 09:12am

Drill baby, drill. I believe that was McCain's answer to just about everything aside from saying that he didn't know too much about that issue and that he'd get back to the person asking him the question.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 09:44am
What would McCain have done?

Who cares ... Obama's the One. The Only One. By year-end, he'll own the wars, the economy & all the rest. It just goes with the job.

Posted by sloper at 06/17/2009 @ 10:59am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 09:44am

Well, cut him some slack, Wolf....

his Vice-President wouldn't be able to name a magazine or newspaper that she read.

In comparison, McCain would have looked like a cross between Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, Jr.

Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 11:16am
I wonder if his wife's problems will diminish John Conyers' influence.

Posted by VEH at 06/17/2009 @ 11:28am
McCain just got the "lifetime achievement award" from the repubs. Palin was seen as the "brains" in that tandem.

Posted by Sorelish at 06/17/2009 @ 11:32am
Man, we sure are lucky Bush/Cheney still aren't running things and the Democrats are in power. Look at how different things are!

Posted by Citizen54 at 06/17/2009 @ 09:09am

106b is down about 80b from last year. I know some on the left would like to see us just pack up everything and go home, all at once. I just don't see that being very practicable. We need to ease our way out to improve any chance of a realistic peaceful transition. Additionally, it does cost money to move armies, so if we want our troops to come home we need to pay for that move.

This said Obama has been in office less than 6 months. I'll give 6 more until I start grumbling and the Dems will be in trouble come the mid terms if we are not mostly out of Iraq.

Posted by Extraneous at 06/17/2009 @ 11:43am
OK. My liberal credentials have officially been certified. Not only did my CURRENT representative from California oppose the bill, but my FORMER representative from when I lived in Austin also opposed the bill.

Made me laugh.

Who cares ... Obama's the One. The Only One. By year-end, he'll own the wars, the economy & all the rest. It just goes with the job.

Posted by sloper at 06/17/2009 @ 10:59am

Hmmm....just like Bush/Cheney "owned" 9/11?

I LOVE selective memory.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 1:56pm
Many of the 32 were for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney as well.

The only way we voters will ever get respect from our Democratic Congress is to force them to support Prosecution of Bush, Cheney and their Torture Advocating Lawyers.

Bush's abuse of power caused all of this.

We must keep the pressure on Obama.

SIGN THE PETITION To Prosecute Them For Torture

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

Over 250,000 have signed Join them and call yourself a Patriot

Help keep the pressure on Obama.

Posted by JohnHKennedy at 06/17/2009 @ 2:18pm
Many of the 32 were for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney as well.

The only way we voters will ever get respect from our Democratic Congress is to force them to support Prosecution of Bush, Cheney and their Torture Advocating Lawyers.

Bush's abuse of power caused all of this.

We must keep the pressure on Obama.

SIGN THE PETITION To Prosecute Them For Torture

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

Over 250,000 have signed Join them and call yourself a Patriot

Help keep the pressure on Obama.

Posted by JohnHKennedy at 06/17/2009 @ 2:18pm

It's a shame to besmirch an honorable name with your fringe extremist and pathetic ideas. From your posting I can guarantee that you would see JFK as someone just as evil in your eyes as Bush.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/17/2009 @ 2:42pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/17/2009 @ 2:42pm

Right... fringe extremist ideas? There were quite a few who thought we should have impeached Clinton, because he did not think the world needed to know about his private life. Yes, he lied. So did Bush and Cheney. I would argue that the ramifications to the world and the US from Clintons lie were basically nil. The same cannot be said for Bush and Cheneys. One was a lie to a question that should never have been asked. The other was a lie to the country and the world.

Posted by Extraneous at 06/17/2009 @ 3:10pm
Posted by Extraneous at 06/17/2009 @ 3:10pm

Just to give you a heads-up....Larry is a big Cheney supporter.

(Kinda ignores the "I'm okay with gay marriage" thing...but otherwise a fan of Veepalpatine.)

Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 3:19pm
The other was a lie to the country and the world.

Posted by Extraneous at 06/17/2009 @ 3:10pm

You are wasting your time conversing with Liverhead. He's all for feeding the military industrial complex it's red meat as often as possible in the name of freedom and democracy (freedom and democracy are GOP code words for big business, destroying any socialistic systems as well as any countries that aren't Christian....besides Israel of course).

Watch out Canada, you're next on their list.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 3:24pm
Extraneous,

You said (about Slick Willie's lies): "...One was a lie to a question that should never have been asked. ...."

You also make mention of his "private life".

As you know, Slick Willie had been sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment.

As you also know, regulatory agencies had been and were investigating the dealings he and his wife had with regard to the property known as "Whitewater".

As a result of these investigations, Slick Willie began lying and obstructing.

But, back to your comment, you said "...a question that never should have been asked"..

So one has to conclude (easy to do) that if you believe "a question" or questions, I suppose, were not supposed to have been asked, then apparently YOU believe:

1. Sexual harassment is OK.

2. Shady land dealings and banking practices are OK.

Because you say we were not supposed to have looked into those things.

Now, I would like some clarification here. Do you believe that items 1 and 2 above are OK always, in all cases, or are items 1 and 2 only OK if one's name is Bill Clinton?

Posted by sjchermak at 06/17/2009 @ 4:36pm
(freedom and democracy are GOP code words for big business,...)-wolfgang

Now I get it!!

that's why Chimpy would use those terms 50 times in a speech.

SJCHERM, you do know that Jones "lawsuit" was "totally without merit", don't you? Judges words, not mine. I thought cons were against frivolous lawsuits bogging down the judicial system? Silly me.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 06:33am
Just think SJCHERM, Hillary Clinton could be reading your e-mail. And you are cool with that!

I love this country!

Posted by crabwalk at 06/17/2009 @ 9:30pm

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 06:34am
"snowball666,

You asked ".....We await your link to prove that domestic spying was ruled as 'legal' as well...."

And we also await your link to show that domestic spying took place. When did it take place? How many people were "spied" upon?

And that appears to have been much ado about nothing, the last I knew there was no massive or even minor use of these "powers" that libs were in fear of. "Posted by sjchermak at 06/16/2009 @ 7:53pm

Published: June 16, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The National Security Agency is facing renewed scrutiny over the extent of its domestic surveillance program, with critics in Congress saying its recent intercepts of the private telephone calls and e-mail messages of Americans are broader than previously acknowledged, current and former officials said.

Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.--NYT

---

what was that you were saying SJ? Something about no domestic spying?

And here I thought conservatives wanted a weak federal government. Silly me.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 06:38am
Silly Rep Ensign.

Family Values is for rabbits, not republicans.

It sure seems like adultery is a "core value" to many elected repub officials. But, you go ahead SJ, talk to us about infidelity, powerful men and their underling women.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 06:49am
Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 06:33am

It is an article of faith to ditto-heads, crab, that Bill Clinton "is the root of all evil."

(Oddly, true for some "pure progressives", too...heheh)

Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 08:14am
It sure seems like adultery is a "core value" to many elected repub officials

Posted by crabwalk

Adultery is a nonpartisan "core value"

Posted by abell12ct at 06/18/2009 @ 09:44am
From your posting I can guarantee that you would see JFK as someone just as evil in your eyes as Bush. Posted by antisocialist

Well JFK did try to invade a country that did nothing to us.

Posted by abell12ct at 06/18/2009 @ 09:49am
Adultery is a nonpartisan "core value"

Posted by abell12ct at 06/18/2009 @ 09:44am

Yep, but only one party runs on the Family values core.

Does this mean that Ensign, Foley, Vitter and the rest get their "core deposit" back?

And, bringing up Billy, it looks like "his" DOMA failed once again to protect marriage.

---

"It is an article of faith to ditto-heads, crab, that Bill Clinton "is the root of all evil." "

If so, why are they so eager to let Hillary read their email?

And, if Bill is the root, where does that leave Obama, the Anti-Christ?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 10:18am
And, if Bill is the root, where does that leave Obama, the Anti-Christ? Posted by crabwalk

You finally understand.

Posted by abell12ct at 06/18/2009 @ 10:20am
WAIT A MINUTE!!!

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

"The spending scheme was opposed by 170 Republicans. "

Why do they want to harm the troops?

Published: March 13, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 12 -- Vice President Dick Cheney lashed out at Congressional opponents of the war in Iraq on Monday, saying that Democrats and others who would limit President Bush's authority to spend money on the war were undermining the troops and "telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out."

Mr. Cheney said "Anyone can say they support the troops and we should take them at their word, but the proof will come when it's time to provide the money."

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 10:23am
Posted by abell12ct at 06/18/2009 @ 10:20am

I thought the Anti-Christ was the root?

Does that mean Bill is more like a legume, he fixes the nitrogen for Obama?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 10:25am
The Hill

By Walter Alarkon Posted: 06/15/09 08:21 PM [ET]

House Republicans are preparing to vote en bloc against the $106 billion war-spending bill, a position once unthinkable for the party that characterized the money as support for the troops.

"It is the Democratic leadership that is playing politics with our troops by insisting on using them as leverage to pass over $100 billion in global bailout money for the IMF," said Michael Steel, Boehner's spokesman.

However, Republicans also have used the supplemental war bills to advance non-related priorities. In 2006, Republican senators included $4 billion for farm programs and $700 million for a railroad project on the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast.

Republicans also embraced the war supplemental in 2007 -- advanced by the Democratic-controlled Congress -- that included an increase in the minimum wage.

---

core values.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 10:27am
Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 10:27am

The Republicans were right to vote against the cynical play by the House Democrats and Obama to give away 100's of billions to the European banks.

You don't have a problem with giving our tax dollars away to support European banks Crab?

The Republicans would have voted enmasse for the bill if the IMF giveaway was not included.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/18/2009 @ 10:43am
No, no, anti.

repubs slathered all sorts of stuff in appropriations bills, along with dems, when the repubs controlled the pursestrings. Anytime the dems talked about not supporting OFF BUDGET funding for the wars the howls of outrage were headr throughout the land. Howls of "Demoncrats don't support the troops!!!!".

And, it is not 100's of billions, it is 5 billion for the IMF.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 10:56am
I had a problem giving US tax payer money to Achmed Chalibi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Maliki, and Halliburtons Cayman subsidiaries.

And you were FOR it.

Again, one standard for you, another for other people.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 10:59am
I had a problem giving US tax payer money to Achmed Chalibi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Maliki, and Halliburtons Cayman subsidiaries.

And you were FOR it.

Again, one standard for you, another for other people.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2009 @ 10:59am

Show where I ever was for giving those people money?

Posted by antisocialist at 06/18/2009 @ 12:39pm
In comparison, McCain would have looked like a cross between Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, Jr.

Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 11:16am

Good point. That woman is a frightening prospect for any public seat. She would do better hosting a talk show on the Faux network or perhaps becoming an actress or anything other than a politician though she is full of crap which is a big feather in her cap for working in D.C.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/18/2009 @ 3:40pm
Show where I ever was for giving those people money? Posted by antisocialist at 06/18/2009 @ 12:39pm |

You were against every previous war supplemental, Anti?

How unpatriotic of you.

Posted by snowball666 at 06/18/2009 @ 6:02pm

That of course is not what I said.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/18/2009 @ 6:38pm