SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Senate Budget Votes Reveal The Same Old 'Party Of No'
The series of votes that will shape the Senate's version of the fiscal 2016 federal budget won't be until Friday morning, but we already know how this drama ends, with Republicans keeping true to being the "party of 'no'" when it comes to actions that would help raise wages, empower workers and advance the goal of shared prosperity.
Mar 27, 2015
The series of votes that will shape the Senate's version of the fiscal 2016 federal budget won't be until Friday morning, but we already know how this drama ends, with Republicans keeping true to being the "party of 'no'" when it comes to actions that would help raise wages, empower workers and advance the goal of shared prosperity.
The Senate today launched into what's known inside the Beltway as a "vote-a-rama," a marathon series of votes expected to last well into the night. But the tone was arguably set on Tuesday, with a little-noticed vote on a budget amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The Sanders amendment would have accomplished something that should have been noncontroversial: make space in the budget for funding a long-term surface transportation bill. Authorizing spending for the nation's road and public transportation network is something that Congress has to do by May of this year, and Sanders' amendment would have added $478 billion over the next 10 years to the fund that covers the costs of the nation's surface transportation programs. The additional revenue would have come from closing "some outrageous corporate loopholes," Sanders said on the Senate floor.
Sanders has been among the progressives in the Senate pushing aggressively for investments in programs that would help the economy grow more rapidly and create more jobs. But Senate Republicans flatly rejected the amendment on a party-line vote, 45-52.
Also rejected on Tuesday was an amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) that would amend the Equal Pay Act to make it easier for women to pursue pay discrimination claims. Republicans sided instead with a weaker amendment that its sponsor, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), noted "does not authorize any new federal regulations" to actually enforce equal pay standards.
Since those votes, the Senate has also rejected an amendment by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that would have allowed students to refinance their college loans at a lower rate, a Sanders amendment that would require Congress to take action on climate change, a "bring jobs home" amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) designed to close tax loopholes that encourage moving jobs overseas, an amendment that would have increased the minimum wage, and an amendment by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) that would restore funding to the Pell Grant program lost to previous budget cuts.
Also, in a defeat for budget sanity, the Senate rejected, by a vote of 46-54, an amendment by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) that would have lifted the sequestration budget caps for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Murray saw her amendment as a matter of simple economic and political sense. "President Obama has said that he wouldn't sign spending bills that lock in sequestration," Murray said. "And the fact of the matter is that we simply can't make the investments we need, on both defense and non-defense, if these caps remain in place."
The only good that is coming out of this series of votes is that we are getting a good picture of who stands with ordinary Americans and who doesn't, who is committed to making the economy work for working people and who are beholden to the interests of Wall Street and right-wing ideologues. As Republicans posture for the 2016 elections, senators will increasingly make themselves sound as if they care about the plight of working people and are prepared to do something about it. But it is important to remember that when they had opportunities to say with their vote that they are prepared to do something concrete to create jobs, ensure women get equal pay, that college is affordable or avert damage from climate change, they turned the other way.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Isaiah J. Poole
Isaiah J. Poole is the editorial director of The Next System Project, a project of the Democracy Collaborative. He was previously communications director for People's Action and for the Campaign for America's Future, where his responsibilities included serving as editor for the organization's website and blog, OurFuture.org. Poole has more than 30 years of experience in journalism, both as a reporter covering Washington D.C.-area and national politics and as a news and features editor. He also was a founding member of both the Washington Association of Black Journalists and the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association.
The series of votes that will shape the Senate's version of the fiscal 2016 federal budget won't be until Friday morning, but we already know how this drama ends, with Republicans keeping true to being the "party of 'no'" when it comes to actions that would help raise wages, empower workers and advance the goal of shared prosperity.
The Senate today launched into what's known inside the Beltway as a "vote-a-rama," a marathon series of votes expected to last well into the night. But the tone was arguably set on Tuesday, with a little-noticed vote on a budget amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The Sanders amendment would have accomplished something that should have been noncontroversial: make space in the budget for funding a long-term surface transportation bill. Authorizing spending for the nation's road and public transportation network is something that Congress has to do by May of this year, and Sanders' amendment would have added $478 billion over the next 10 years to the fund that covers the costs of the nation's surface transportation programs. The additional revenue would have come from closing "some outrageous corporate loopholes," Sanders said on the Senate floor.
Sanders has been among the progressives in the Senate pushing aggressively for investments in programs that would help the economy grow more rapidly and create more jobs. But Senate Republicans flatly rejected the amendment on a party-line vote, 45-52.
Also rejected on Tuesday was an amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) that would amend the Equal Pay Act to make it easier for women to pursue pay discrimination claims. Republicans sided instead with a weaker amendment that its sponsor, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), noted "does not authorize any new federal regulations" to actually enforce equal pay standards.
Since those votes, the Senate has also rejected an amendment by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that would have allowed students to refinance their college loans at a lower rate, a Sanders amendment that would require Congress to take action on climate change, a "bring jobs home" amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) designed to close tax loopholes that encourage moving jobs overseas, an amendment that would have increased the minimum wage, and an amendment by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) that would restore funding to the Pell Grant program lost to previous budget cuts.
Also, in a defeat for budget sanity, the Senate rejected, by a vote of 46-54, an amendment by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) that would have lifted the sequestration budget caps for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Murray saw her amendment as a matter of simple economic and political sense. "President Obama has said that he wouldn't sign spending bills that lock in sequestration," Murray said. "And the fact of the matter is that we simply can't make the investments we need, on both defense and non-defense, if these caps remain in place."
The only good that is coming out of this series of votes is that we are getting a good picture of who stands with ordinary Americans and who doesn't, who is committed to making the economy work for working people and who are beholden to the interests of Wall Street and right-wing ideologues. As Republicans posture for the 2016 elections, senators will increasingly make themselves sound as if they care about the plight of working people and are prepared to do something about it. But it is important to remember that when they had opportunities to say with their vote that they are prepared to do something concrete to create jobs, ensure women get equal pay, that college is affordable or avert damage from climate change, they turned the other way.
Isaiah J. Poole
Isaiah J. Poole is the editorial director of The Next System Project, a project of the Democracy Collaborative. He was previously communications director for People's Action and for the Campaign for America's Future, where his responsibilities included serving as editor for the organization's website and blog, OurFuture.org. Poole has more than 30 years of experience in journalism, both as a reporter covering Washington D.C.-area and national politics and as a news and features editor. He also was a founding member of both the Washington Association of Black Journalists and the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association.
The series of votes that will shape the Senate's version of the fiscal 2016 federal budget won't be until Friday morning, but we already know how this drama ends, with Republicans keeping true to being the "party of 'no'" when it comes to actions that would help raise wages, empower workers and advance the goal of shared prosperity.
The Senate today launched into what's known inside the Beltway as a "vote-a-rama," a marathon series of votes expected to last well into the night. But the tone was arguably set on Tuesday, with a little-noticed vote on a budget amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The Sanders amendment would have accomplished something that should have been noncontroversial: make space in the budget for funding a long-term surface transportation bill. Authorizing spending for the nation's road and public transportation network is something that Congress has to do by May of this year, and Sanders' amendment would have added $478 billion over the next 10 years to the fund that covers the costs of the nation's surface transportation programs. The additional revenue would have come from closing "some outrageous corporate loopholes," Sanders said on the Senate floor.
Sanders has been among the progressives in the Senate pushing aggressively for investments in programs that would help the economy grow more rapidly and create more jobs. But Senate Republicans flatly rejected the amendment on a party-line vote, 45-52.
Also rejected on Tuesday was an amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) that would amend the Equal Pay Act to make it easier for women to pursue pay discrimination claims. Republicans sided instead with a weaker amendment that its sponsor, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), noted "does not authorize any new federal regulations" to actually enforce equal pay standards.
Since those votes, the Senate has also rejected an amendment by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that would have allowed students to refinance their college loans at a lower rate, a Sanders amendment that would require Congress to take action on climate change, a "bring jobs home" amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) designed to close tax loopholes that encourage moving jobs overseas, an amendment that would have increased the minimum wage, and an amendment by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) that would restore funding to the Pell Grant program lost to previous budget cuts.
Also, in a defeat for budget sanity, the Senate rejected, by a vote of 46-54, an amendment by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) that would have lifted the sequestration budget caps for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Murray saw her amendment as a matter of simple economic and political sense. "President Obama has said that he wouldn't sign spending bills that lock in sequestration," Murray said. "And the fact of the matter is that we simply can't make the investments we need, on both defense and non-defense, if these caps remain in place."
The only good that is coming out of this series of votes is that we are getting a good picture of who stands with ordinary Americans and who doesn't, who is committed to making the economy work for working people and who are beholden to the interests of Wall Street and right-wing ideologues. As Republicans posture for the 2016 elections, senators will increasingly make themselves sound as if they care about the plight of working people and are prepared to do something about it. But it is important to remember that when they had opportunities to say with their vote that they are prepared to do something concrete to create jobs, ensure women get equal pay, that college is affordable or avert damage from climate change, they turned the other way.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.