The Budget Passes Both Houses--Specter, Republicans Vote No
The Senate has passed the President's budget by a vote of 53-43.
Just as earlier this month when the Senate passed it's version of the resolution (and just as in the House earlier today) not a single Republican voted for it. And just as last time, they were joined by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Ben Nelson (D-NE). And just as last time, Sen. Arlen Specter voted against it, too. Except last time around he was a Republican.
I'll post the full roll call when it becomes available.
Late update: Statements from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell below the fold.
Late late update: Here's the roll call. Specter's still listed as a Republican. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) also voted with the Republicans, presumably over the issue of reconciliation.
Reid:
Our budget is a responsible blueprint for rebuilding America's economy and strengthening the middle class. This is about much more than a document filled with numbers. It is about the Americans who will soon get the affordable, quality health care and education they deserve. It is about the job-creating investments in clean, renewable energy to strengthen our national security, economy and environment. And it is about the hardworking middle-class families whose taxes we will cut so they can keep more of their paycheck at the time they need it most.Democrats know we cannot recover unless we do all these things. While it is extremely disappointing that not a single Republican joined us, we will still save them a seat at the table as we implement our budget and turn these priorities into realities.
McConnell:
While families across the country are tightening their belts and carefully watching every dollar, Congress is on a trillion-dollar spending spree.The same Democrats who were outraged over last year's deficit just voted for a budget this year that will lead to twice as large trillion-dollar deficits and double the debt in just five years.
Americans don't understand how a giant expansion of government will help create or preserve jobs, or why the same Democrats who showed strong support on the Senate floor for Republican proposals to protect small businesses and middle class taxpayers, dropped those proposals once behind closed doors.
Massive spending and crushing debt are not the answers to a recession, and neither are tax hikes on working families and job creators.
Josh
Matt
Eric
No surprises here, I guess.
April 29, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprises also in a good way, considering that it passed. In the long run that's the only thing that will matter.
April 29, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course specter voted with the republicans, seeing as how he is one.
like i said yesterday, specter is going to keep voting with the republicans except he's going to call himself a democrat while doing it.
i really fail to see how having him call himself a democrat while voting against democratic priorities really helps to pass the democratic agenda.
but i'm sure the geniuses in the party who promised not to support any primary challenges against him from any real democrats have already figure that out...
April 29, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all know that the only problem the party has is with the left and if it weren't for the good example set by the Bayhs and Nelsons voting against the party's agenda we'd never get anywhere at all. Soon Harry Reid will inform us that we really can't get anything done until we have 70 votes because we have 10 votes reserved for Blue Dogs to demononstrate to the rest of us how much better they are than we are, how much more moderate they are voting as they do with the few remaining right wing lunatics.
April 29, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to cut both Specter and the Ds a bit of slack and give them a bit more time. One simple explanation on Specter voting no is that he didn't have to vote yet for it to pass, and there may be some political advantage for his vote, for him, at least.
I think Nate Silver at 538.com got it right when he doubted if Specter's changing sides helps the Ds much, but it definitely hurts the Rs. Obama and Reid are going to keep talking the talk on bipartisanship, but when the senior R abandons ship because the party is being too unreasonable, it's hard to fault the Ds for moving ahead with their own agenda if the Rs choose not to participate in a meaningful way.
April 29, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
We might as well start calling Arlen . . . Ben Nelson.
April 29, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A DINO is a moderate republican who runs as a Democrat only because they couldn't win a primary as a Republican. That's exactly what Specter did - it's a textbook case.
Of course many Republicans would have said Specter was a RINO, was only a Republican because he couldn't have won a primary as a Dem.
He's just a centrist doing what he needs to do to stay elected.
April 29, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Centrist means amoral and unprincipled. A real Democrat absolutely can be elected in PA. Specter doesn't do what he does because that's what the voters want, he does what he does to solve his immediate political problems. You can have a state like Iowa that elects both a real liberal and a real conservative. Many if not most states could easily elect a principled candidate on either side if the candidate is attractive and makes an effort to speak to the needs of the state. Centrist is just a dodge for filling your pockets with campaign contributions from the lobbies that have bought you.
April 29, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
A centrist is NOT someone who votes recessivist 75-80% of the time . . . You might be able to make a case for Obama being a centrist but Arlen is firmly right of center.
April 29, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck Specter.
April 29, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter has switched parties because the structure of the Dems in PA is weaker than the Repubes who are Roving him out. I find this to be a very bad sign for Dems. If he wins the primary, there will be no Democrat running for Senate seat in the final election. The fact that Democrats would allow and encourage this is fucking absurd.
April 29, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a terrific point though I don't know if the word I'd use is "structure". Their principles certainly are weaker. As much as I despise what the lunatics on the right advocate I do envy the ability of the grassroots to be heard in their party. Boss Rendell has dictated the Democratic candidate and the Democrats might as well be living in China for all the influence they have on the election. If I were a PA Dem, I'd vote for the Republican out of sheer fury at having been disenfranchised by the Democratic machine.
April 29, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's pretty absurd that Specter voted no, by which I mean it's absurd Reid let him. Specter gets Dem reelection dollars and no officially sanctioned primary opponent not to mention he gets away from Toomey. What do the Dems get in return?
I am definitely not for party line votes and absolute obedience but a 'yea' on this his first day as a newly minted Democrat would have been a nice gesture. If the only thing that changes is the letter before his name on C-SPAN then what's the point?
Lieberman goes to the Republican convention and trashes Obama - after being specifically told not to and rather than punishing him, Reid gives him a pass. (Nevermind the fact that he ran against a Dem in '06 and spent the last 8 years buddying up to Bush and any other Republican that he felt could increase his influence.)
Now we have Specter becoming a member of the Democratic party because it is politically expedient but demonstrating that he has no intention of embracing the policy positions of the party.
What does Reid need these people in the caucus for? What purpose are they serving? Why accept Specter as a Dem rather than pushing for him to be an independent that caucuses with the Dems?
Is there some tangible evidence of clever maneuvering by Reid and/or the white house or are all indications that Reid is just completely spineless? Honestly this crap is driving me a little bit nuts.
April 29, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight. Specter is about to lose his seat because he cannot win a primary race against a fascist. The dems say, come on over to our side and we will clear the primary slate for you, we will finance your campaign and Obama will campaign for you.
So what does Specter do in return? He pissed all over us.
If we had let him stay where he was, he would have lost the primary and a progressive dem would have won the race. How is trading a progressive for a POS who votes with the republicans a good deal for democrats?
April 29, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
HA. Maybe Specter voted "No" one last time just for old times sake.
April 29, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do all realize that the ideological purity you are arguing for is why the republicans have been reduced to impotence. Arlen Spector is pro-choice, pro gay rights, pro civil rights, pro science, pro environment, pro stem cell research, pro clean energy, etc. He is not a liberal, but he has a lot of common ground with other dems on many issues. While he folded on issues on like torture and wiretapping during the Bush years, it was likely because he was threatened by his party. That is no longer an issue. Could it actually be that as a fiscal conservative, he really does not support the budget? I personally don't support the budget either, because of the continuing farm subsidies and a number of other sellouts to various lobbies. I guess you could call me a DINO, though it would be kind of off base, as I am an unaffiliated voter. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the utter cluelessness and kneejerk Obamabotics at what used to be TPM Election Central. Some things never change. Luckily, those in power understand that unless the Democratic party is a big tent, we will get nothing at all done—ever.
April 30, 2009 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You made a good point, in that the Democratic Party is, in fact, a coalition of various interest groups, bound together by a few loose principles that we share. I welcome Spector as a Democrat. But, I am a liberal Democrat, not a centrist Democrat, and most certainly not a conservative Democrat. I want to see 100 US senators elected, all of whom are liberal Democrats. Of course I accept the fact that I will never see that, but that isn't the point.
I doubt that I will ever stop being thrilled to have Obama as president, and I suspect he will be one of the greatest of all times. But, I see my "job" to be trying to shove him over to the left at every opportunity. We who have strong liberal beliefs have an moral obligation to continue to push the government leftward.
Having Spector as a Democratic Senator from PA just means to me that I can't have a liberal Democratic Senator from PA. I find that discouraging, and unnecessary.
April 30, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink