Most House Democrats Reject Obama’s Austerity Budget Deal With GOP

Most House Democrats Reject Obama’s Austerity Budget Deal With GOP

Most House Democrats Reject Obama’s Austerity Budget Deal With GOP

Agreement is approved by House and Senate, but Democratic opposition in the House is striking. In the Senate, Bernie Sanders votes no and says “this budget moves America in exactly the wrong direction.”


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 healthcare, education and meaningful investments in community renewal and job creation.

The House vote was especially telling.

Whipped by the White House and Republican leaders, the plan to cut $39.9 billion in spending passed the House by a 260-167 vote.

But, like the Clinton-Gingrich free trade deals of the 1990s, this proposal by a Democratic president and his Republican partners did not pass with the support of most House Democrats.

Of the 260 “yes” votes for the deal, 179 came from Republicans who answered the call of the president and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Of the 167 “no” votes, 108 came from Democrats and fifty-nine from Republicans.

The Democrats who voted “no” included the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, as well as Congressional Black Caucus chair Barbara Lee of California and Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair Nydia M. Velázquez of New York. Ranking Democrats such as George Miller of California, Barney Frank of Massachusetts and John Conyers of Michigan voted “no.” And so did House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

“It was pretty evident the House Democrats were not a part of that agreement,” Pelosi explained before the vote. “I feel no ownership of that or any responsibility to it—except that we don’t want to shut down the government.”

Pelosi and the House Democrats deserve credit for their show of independence, and support for the basic principles of the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. They know that pro–Wall Street “austerity” budgets serve special interests and reinforce Republican talking points, not working Americans and progresive values.

The same cannot be said for Senate Democrats, all but two of whom backed the Obama-GOP deal.

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.

In addition to arguing that the budget agreement “moves America in exactly the wrong direction,” Sanders said, “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.”

Sanders captured the sentiment of progressives in Congress and across the country when he said, “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.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy