A Colorado Democrat handpicked by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to helm the party’s 2014 campaign effort was one of the eight “no” votes against the fiscal cliff deal last night.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) was appointed to fill the seat left vacant by Ken Salazar’s appointment to the Interior Department in 2009. He won his first full term in 2010, and was named to chair the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last month.
Bennet’s vote flummoxed Dems on Twitter after the late-night session. In a statement, the senator said he wouldn’t agree to anything that adds to the deficit.
“Washington once again has lived up to its reputation as the ‘Land of Flickering Lights,’” Bennet said. “For four years in my townhall meetings across the state Coloradans have told me they want a plan that materially reduces the deficit. This proposal does not meet that standard and does not put in place a real process to reduce the debt down the road.”
Bennet had been working on a bipartisan deficit-reduction deal with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), but Alexander voted for the compromise bill early this morning.
The other “no” votes were from Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
Harkin was upset about raising the threshold for tax hikes from President Obama’s favored number of $250,000 to $450,000 for households.
Carper has strongly favored a Simpson-Bowles approach that includes comprehensive tax reform and spending cuts.
Before coming to the Senate, Bennet’s experience included six years restructuring debt as managing director for Anschutz Investment Company, a firm of conservative tycoon Phil Anschutz.
My estimation of Senator Bennett just skyrocketed
Needs further exploration. You can “reduce the deficit” by increasing taxes more than you increase spending.
No, what they have done is only reduce the rate at which the deficit grows. $620 billion in new taxes across ten years will barely be noticeable when deficits are running $1 trillion plus each year. $62 billion in a year where $1.3 trillion is the deficit won’t even be noticeable when numbers are rounded to two significant digits. There is not enough income to tax to reduce the deficit if we don’t reduce spending. We only have a revenue problem because we have a *spending* problem. The deficit is still very near 100% of GDP (assuming you don’t count future liabilities, of course, in which case it’s something like 1200% of current GDP.)
Sorry, my friend. That is at best a utopian ideal. You have to understand that government is a spendaholic; if you raise revenues without cutting spending (not to mention increasing spending, which happened last night) the revenues will be spent and spending will continue to increase. Sooner or later government, as with people, must face the fact that the first step in establishing and maintaining fiscal discipline is to cut spending, however painful that might be. Until then the cycle will not stop, our deficits will grow along with the accumulated debt and we will be even further on the road to national bankruptcy.
Bennet is a lackey for Philip Anschutz a multi-billionaire from Kansas with significant holdings in Colorado and California.
Bennet’s vote is a big surprise. He is not up for re-election until 2016, so this was not purely a CYA vote.
I hope that Obama’s premature gloating hardens the spine of Republicans in the house. Forward – over the cliff. No more of these last minute, silly deals.
The pretense by Repubs who vote for the proposal, all in order to avert the fiscal cliff, is just that, a pretense.
They know full well that the Radical-in-Chief will never, ever agree to anything which doesn’t assist his socialist agenda. And whatever caveats are placed within won’t amount to a hill of beans, as long as Obama is at the helm.
So while Washington’s financial house has to be placed in order, it doesn’t mean that scaring the public, re this or that cliff, is a reason to cave.
Again, most of the Dems, and most especially the POTUS, have an end game. It is not what any patriot should accede to – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/27/dhs-americas-planned-deconstruction-via-valerie-jarrett-domestically-foreign-policy-wise-addendum-to-barack-hussein-obamas-deconstruction-plans-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
The Repubs ought to grow a pair, steer clear of quick fixes and brass knuckle tactics – if they dare.
Bennet is a Democrat – thus the surprise.
Another dem who casts votes that make no difference to help the next election.
I was strongly supportive of a deal that kept my taxes from going up but now, in spite of the personal financial pain it will cause, I would prefer for us to go over the cliff.
Why? Because it’s about time we as a nation, but especially Liberals, were forced to face the bill for the size of government we demand. We cannot continue to spend more than we’re willing to tax. The longer we postpone the unavoidable day if reckoning the more damaging it will be. And it disgusts me that greedy Leftists demand more government for themselves and yet want to stick someone else with the tab.
Obama and the Democrats seem to believe that the GOP will take the blame for higher taxes, and they might, but once people are made to understand this is the price for the government they vote for, they will turn their anger toward the party of BIG government.
Greedy leftists?? There is plenty of blame to go around, in both parties, for the dire fiscal straits the country is now in.
Can we assume, in the spirit of sharing blame, that you would support the call by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to audit the Pentagon?
Naw, they won’t do that.
Both sides bear guilt, but both sides think that only they walk with god and are on the side of the angels. From grassroots to D.C., greed and ideology have crippled both sides’ ability to do what must be done.
Both sides want to keep their own favorite gov programs and departments while gutting everything the other likes and wants.
Today, we need to cut everything by 40% – 50% just to be able to say that we’re broke. The EPA, the NEA, DHS, TSA, DoD, you name it, it all must be slashed, along with the laws, rules and regulations that add to the costs of compliance.
To truly deal with the deficit means that every department, branch and part of government must be slashed by as much as 60% – 70%.
…but both sides would rather blame and demonize the other.
Neither side is promoting peace or unity …or real solutions.
It’s going to end in bloodshed.
Absolutely. Government is wasteful no matter what that particular group is spending the money given to them on. People are almost always more careful with their own money than with someone else’s money, that’s a huge part of why government is so inefficient. I believe in a strong military but I am a firm believer in keeping that military responsible for the money they spend. Likewise, every agency across the board should be responsible & transparent about the money they spend. The problem is that that would be very hard to do because of the sheer size of the government. Which is just another reason why the entire system needs to be pruned.
All programs and departments have to be looked at. There is emormous waste throughout the federal government.
I agree with Eric. The only way people can be made aware of what this government costs is to start paying for it. Higher taxes would change the story from “free stuff” to “lower MY taxes” real quick.
What is not addressed in this budget is growth. Big government absorbs available capital. Higher taxes discourage growth. But even worse than high taxes is the regulatory environment. What is needed are politicians who understand this, especially Republican politicians.
Greedy Leftist VOTERS who want guarantees of an easy life with no risk.
These people will be surprised how hard life becomes when our economy really starts to falter. What we’ve seen the past few weeks with the fiscal cliff is just a foretaste of the strife we’ll have to endure when we’re dividing up ever fewer resources. This will become a way of life for us – and it will get worse – because of greedy and ignorant leftist voters.
I don’t care what his motivation was. He did the right thing. Now if he only uses his head and votes AGAINST any attempt to ban firearms.
Our Senator in a brief moment of lucidity.
A Democrat I can have some respect for apparently; knowing nothing else about him I’ll leave it at that. As for his colleagues and spineless Republicans, disgust and contempt are the two words that this theater brings to mind today.
My niece will have an even bigger mess dumped in her generation’s lap as a result, as our epitaph reads “We got ours kids; deal with it.”
I wish I could say I was encouraged by Bennett’s vote, but since the outcome was never in doubt I’ll say I’m glad he voted the way he did, but I’m skeptical that he would have voted the same way if his were the deciding vote. I think he’s thinking ahead to the next election.
Lil’ Mikey was allowed to vote against since 1) he’s not up for reelection until 2016 and he’s confident the Colorado Dems will have forgotten about this, and 2) Reid had all the votes he needed anyway. When push comes to shove, Bennet and Udall are both bought and paid for lackeys of the DNC.