Where The Rubber Meets The Road (2/5/10)

As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week (and I also posted a video here).

House

Small-business financing. Voting 410-4, the House passed a bill (HR 4508) to extend several Small Business Administration loan and grant programs while awaiting Senate action on a House-passed bill to upgrade and reauthorize those programs.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: John Adler (D., N.J.), Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

I was curious to find out who actually opposed this legislation, and as noted here, those voting No were all Repugs: Paul Broun, Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, and Ron Paul.

Senate

Bernanke confirmation. Voting 70-30, the Senate confirmed Ben S. Bernanke, 56, for a second four-year term as chairman of the Federal Reserve System board of governors. Bernanke's first term was to expire (on the 31st). Bernanke has 10 years remaining in his 14-year term as a Fed board member.

A yes vote was to confirm Bernanke.

Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).

Voting no: Ted Kaufman (D., Del.) and Arlen Specter (D., Pa.).

I doubt that Snarlin’ Arlen would have cast this vote were it not for Admiral Joe’s primary challenge, especially when it looked like confirmation was assured anyway. And Kaufman knows he’s a lame duck, so he won’t pay a price for this one way or the other.

Did I support Bernanke’s confirmation? I really sat on the fence on this until I read a Paul Krugman column that pointed out Bernanke’s culpability for our current mess, though it also pointed out that he could be the least worst option out there.

The question to me is how far do you want to go here. Do you want to bring in the right person (such as Joseph Stiglitz) and watch the markets react by returning the Dow to 6,000? We know that the game is rigged against us, and you’d better damn believe the Dems know that too.

Sorry that that’s not particularly profound or courageous really, but I don’t know what else to say.

National debt limit. Voting 60-39, the Senate sent the House a bill raising the national debt limit by $1.9 trillion to $14.29 trillion. The bill (HJ Res 45) would extend Treasury borrowing authority until late 2010 or early 2011, at which time Congress would vote on whether to raise the debt ceiling.

A yes vote was to raise the federal debt limit.

Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Kaufman, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Specter.

This was a no-brainer (and a trick replicated by the congressional Repugs during their ruinous years in charge earlier in this decade too, let’s not forget).

"Pay as you go." In a party-line vote of 60-40, the Senate reached the supermajority it needed to add a pay-as-you-go budget rule to HJ Res 45 (above). Because the House already has approved pay-go, this vote cleared the way for it to become law. Under pay-go, tax cuts or entitlement spending hikes must be offset elsewhere in the federal budget. If not offset, they need supermajorities for approval. Pay-go was a staple of congressional budgeting throughout the 1990s but was dropped to facilitate Bush administration tax cuts, among other reasons. Republicans usually oppose pay-go as a deterrent to tax cuts.

A yes vote was to enact pay-go.

Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Kaufman, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Specter.

Another no-brainer (and kudos to the Inky for providing the bolded context; the party-line opposition to this is proof that the Repugs learned nothing from their years of malfeasance as noted above, spending like proverbial drunken sailors).

Spending caps. Voting 56-44, the Senate failed to get 60 votes for putting spending caps on the 40 percent of the federal budget that is discretionary spending. Under the amendment to HJ Res 45 (above), two-thirds majority votes would be needed in the Senate to waive the caps in order to meet national emergencies. The caps would be based on fiscal 2010 spending levels and expire after five years.

A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.

Voting yes: Carper

Voting no: Casey, Kaufman, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Specter.

Leave it to Carper to vote for an amendment sponsored by a Repug (Jeff Sessions of Alabama – again, for the moment, it’s not about the deficit, it’s about jobs!!!)

Deficit commission. Voting 53-46, the Senate failed to get 60 votes needed to establish an 18-member commission that would develop a deficit-reduction plan for an up-or-down vote in Congress with amendments barred. The president would have veto power over the legislation, which presumably would be a mix of tax increases and mandatory and discretionary spending cuts. This vote occurred during debate on HJ Res 45 (above).

A yes vote was to establish the commission.

Voting yes: Carper, Kaufman, and Menendez.

Voting no: Casey, Lautenberg, and Specter.

As noted here, 23 Republicans voted against this hairbrained idea, which is good news for us all (and kudos to Casey, Lautenberg and Specter). And here is today’s New York Times column by Paul Krugman to explain why (I’ve basically said the same stuff all along, but Krugman can explain it more expertly than I ever could).

This week, the House took up bills on raising the national debt limit and authorizing federal grants for university cybersecurity instruction. The Senate schedule was to be announced.