Vermont liberals cheered when Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted against the deal crafted in Washington that raised the government’s debt ceiling in exchange for trillions in dollars in future budget cuts.
“I voted against it because it is not a balanced plan with shared sacrifice,” Welch said in a written statement after last night’s House vote. “It ignores glaring inequities in the federal tax code while cutting programs important to the middle class, seniors and low-income Americans.”
Sanders indicated last night he would vote against the bill when it came to the Senate. He did when it arrived this afternoon.
Hooray! Vermont’s liberals cried.
Green Mountain Daily bloggers, who had issued an open plea with the delegation to vote against the deal, published Welch’s statement in its entirety. “As GMD urged him to do this morning, Peter Welch voted against the debt ceiling ‘compromise,'” they wrote.
Booyah!
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) voted in favor of the deal. Boo! hissed Vermont’s liberals, including GMD.
So, I wonder how Vermont’s liberal cognoscenti will take the news that Rep. Welch only voted against the bill because, well, he knew it would pass. In fact, he would have voted for the debt ceiling bill — including the trillions in cuts with no “shared sacrifice” — had he cast the deciding vote.
Now, there‘s standing by your convictions. Shared sacrifice, indeed. More like spine sacrifice.
Welch ‘fessed up to radio host Mark Johnson this morning on WDEV-FM. Johnson asked Welch if he would have voted against the deal if he had had the deciding vote.
“No, I would not have allowed default,” Welch said. That seemed to raise some questions for Johnson about Welch’s sincerity. To hear the whole exchange, check out the show’s podcast. (Note: The interview with Welch occurs in the last 15 minutes.)
“What I’ve been pushing from the beginning is an increase in debt ceiling to avoid default, but have a clean debt ceiling vote,” Welch told Johnson. That means, just a vote on increasing the debt ceiling and debate budget cuts and tax increases another day.
“We have to have a balanced outcome,” Welch added. “If we’re going to move to a fiscal balance, there’s got to be shared sacrifice. This [Republican] plan in my view lacks that balance there’s no revenues whatsoever.”
To which Johnson added, “Wait, I’m confused here. You say you would have voted in favor of this bill if you had been the deciding vote?”
“Yes,” Welch added. “If we had the choice between the default and a raw deal, I was always clear I would avert a default.”
“Then why did you vote against the bill yesterday?” asked Johnson, noting that the bill, in fact, was about avoiding a default.
“Because there was no issue of default,” said Welch. “Once the Republicans succeed in striking a deal with the president, they released a hostage.”
The “hostage” in this doomsday scenario was raising the debt ceiling in exchange for agreeing to budget cuts. So, with the hostage freed and the votes necessary to pass the bill, Welch was casting a vote against the budget cuts, not raising the debt ceiling, which he supports. Supports enough that he would have allowed those unbalanced budget cuts to be enacted into law if he had been the deciding vote.
Got it? Keep up with him — it’s complicated Washington-speak. The exchange between Johnson and Welch lasts only 15 minutes and Johnson does his best to pin down Welch.
I’m sure all those liberals who call for Sanders — or some such progressive pol — to “primary” President Barack Obama will start calling for someone to challenge Welch.
In fact, Jane Hamsher, founder of the progressive blog Firedoglake, is suggesting that progressives do to Democrats what the Tea Party is doing to Republicans: purge, purify and primary.
“If you want my attention, tell me how you’re going to take out Bernie Sanders or Jan Schakowsky or Raul Grijalva or Peter Welch,” wrote Hamsher. “Let me know how you plan to send a message and enforce discipline with the people who claim to represent your values, but betray them over and over again because they have no fear whatsoever of you.”
Hamsher decried Congressional progressives for being “the same people whose job it is to put the Good Liberal Housekeeping Seal of Approval on whatever piece of neoliberal shit the White House cooks up to please the bond vigilantes.”
(h/t to Snarky Boy for alerting me to Welch’s interview on WDEV-FM. He’s got his own take on the Welch-Johnson exchange, as well as a lesson on Jewish terminology. Welcome back to the blogosphere, Snarky. I think.)
This article appears in Aug 3-9, 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I guess this says something about Rep. Welch as well as the electronic vote system where Reps. know when and if their vote really counts. Time to get rid of that system, and put in a real system of not knowing how the vote stands until all are counted. Oh yea I guess that would mean pollsters for every vote taken in the senate and house.So a system where votes are made, without knowledge of current totals, and after the vote is over declaration of how our leaders voted is needed.AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH.
“Sooner or later all our games turn into Calvinball.”
Dale, This vote wasn’t close. Before the voting began, the party whips (and everyone else in the chamber) knew what the outcome was going to be. Electronic voting really had no bearing on the outcome.
Looks like “I actually would have voted for it, but I voted against it.”-Welch took one from the Kerry 2004 campaign.
Imagine what would have happened if everyone voted no on principle because it was a “done deal,” as Welch and Sanders (though he won’t admit it) did. Not pretty.
What’s even more troubling is Welch’s repeated assertion that those with clear opinions and principles on this issue are “hostage takers.” Really, Peter, you think it’s criminal to have an opinion and use the tools of democracy to advance your cause? Interesting.
“Really, Peter, you think it’s criminal to have an opinion and use the tools of democracy to advance your cause? Interesting.”Yes, if you’re a conservative Republican, right, Snarky Boy? It’s only mandatory and laudatory to stand up for what you belief IF you’re on the ultra-Left.
There is a reason Benedict Arnold is conspicuously absent from the Bennington Battle Monument. Thanks Peter for misleading us and not having the courage to stand up to those holding the economy hostage to advance their anti-American anti-democratic political tactics.
Welch’s actions here are nothing other than political, in the most base sense. No surprise the non-flatlanders here of both sides see his actions as shallow. http://thedailywh.at/2011/08/03/flowchart-of-the-day-3/
“Welch’s actions here are nothing other than political, in the most base sense. No surprise the non-flatlanders here of both sides see his actions as shallow.”Um, if you’re looking for statesmen, as opposed to politicians, then I’m afraid you’re going to have to look outside the US, to some system where the leaders aren’t elected . . .And, BTW, your distinction between flatlanders and non-flatlanders in this context is completely irrelevant. Hint: even some of us flatlanders can tell politics from statemanship, and not all non-flatlanders can.
I suppose you are correct…this is a rather glaring example that either type of *lander could see through.Speaking of, I hope people realize that yesterday’s (actually the last bunch of days) carnage would have been much worse had Two-Faced and others actually voted against the increase in the ceiling. And don’t get me started about tax increases etc. Politics is one thing, economics another.
Peter Welch has the safest seat in all of Congress. Seriously. So for him to vote against this deal, it covers the one group of people who might actually challenge him, the lunatic fringe of the Vermont left. Politically, it makes total sense that he voted against it.However, all that is lost when he goes on the air to say he would have voted in favor of it if he was the deciding vote. Knowing Peter, I was surprised by his vote. He’s not an idiot-logue like Bernie. However, I’m even more surprised by his admission of truth on how he really feels about the issue.
“Truth” and “Peter Welch” can’t be mentioned in the same sentence. I support his breaking with Obama and voting against the GOP plan, but the guy is a careerist not of any principle.
It’s a protest vote guys be realistic. Standing by convictions is one thing defaulting the economy is another. I agree that the Democrats have caved far to often but in this case it was the best deal they were going to get. No one would be helped by defaulting on the debt. If the no deal was done it is likely we would have had a repeat of the 1930’s. We would have all lost if we had gone into default.
“If the no deal was done it is likely we would have had a repeat of the 1930’s.”Do you follow the news?
@ Ward 2 Resident:If you’re implying that we are now experiencing anything even remotely similar to the Great Depression, go stand in the corner and don’t come out until you can behave.
I’m not suggesting what we’re experiencing is like the Great Depression. That would be ridiculous. What I am suggesting is that had the debt been defaulted on we would likely be looking at much much higher unemployment. State and local governments rely on the credit of the federal government. We would be looking at massive layoffs and much less money entering the economy.I don’t like this deal I think it A.) Doesn’t share the burden of this deficit fairly; and B.)Doesn’t actually do that much to address the debt. But this is a case where a bad deal is still much much better than no-deal.I do follow the news. Do you?
@ Andrew:Just to be clear, I wasn’t questioning you; I was questioning “Ward 2 Resident’s” response to you.
The news is that *real* unemployment is approaching 20%, that the US’s credit rating just got a chink taken out of it by S&P, and the market took a 7% drop this week.
What you said is true, real unemployment/underemployment is somewhat difficult to calculate but I would put it around 20% and the markets took a plunge although that was do more to trouble in the EU and Asia. S&P downgraded our rating but I don’t think that will have a major impact on borrowing. S&P said that our political system is broken not that we wouldn’t make good on our debts. The reality is that there are no better investments around than US bonds (for now) that was one thing that was trading well this week.This deal isn’t as bad as it seems but it still sucks. The silver lining is that it leaves the Bush tax cuts alone so they will expire if nothing is done. And if there is one thing congress can do, it’s nothing. The expiration of those tax cuts will, by itself provide a major cut into the debt. The other silver lining is that the other cuts do to happen absent a deal are supposed to come from the bloated Pentagon. I don’t like this deal but it could be worse and it would be way worse without any deal.This is not the Great Depression there were lines for food during the great depression, prices deflated by 32&, unemployment hit 25%, and international trade dropped by 52%. The root causes between this crisis and the Great Depression are similar but the crisis itself has nowhere near the impact.That kind of hyperbole is unhelpful. Things suck but keep it in perspective. Without a deal we would be in much worse shape.
You accuse me of unhelpful hyperbole. You had originally threatened that without this “deal” there would be a repeat of the great depression. Its about as helpful as the “silver lining” sop you peddle.
Ward 2 Resident fails to realize that when you’re talking about “standing up for principle” and voting “no” on this compromise, the people on the Right feel just as passionately as you do that their “principle” of reduced government spending and no increase in taxes is the correct one. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but I understand one thing that you don’t: they have the right to their opinion and absolutely, positively nothing — nothing — you can say or do will change their minds. And the reverse is equally true. The ideologues on the Left who insist that there should be “no deal” with the Republicans are the mirror image of the Tea Party morons. So everybody gets their ideologiocal backs up and stands by their “principle” and we have no deal and the economy crashes. Congratulations. You win.Jesus, all you righteous ideologues just plain suck.
I think a situation close to the Great Depression is very possible if we were to decide not to honor our obligations. Look, I can’t say enough how I don’t like the deal, but the Republicans dug in and they would be perfectly willing to push us to default.Like it or not the House is controlled by the Republicans and there are enough Senators from the GOP to filibuster. I’m not happy about almost anything that’s happened policy wise in Washington for the past 30 years but I still try to operate within the confines of reality.