John Kerry on Budget & Economy
Jr Senator (MA), Democratic nominee for President
Restore pay-as-you-go for fiscal discipline
Q: You pledged that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. How can you keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt?
KERRY: I’ll tell you exactly how I can do it: by reinstating what Pres. Bush took
away, which is called “pay as you go.” During the 1990s, we had pay-as-you-go rules. If you were going to pass something in the Congress, you had to show where you are going to pay for it and how. Pres. Bush is the only president in history to [rescind
pay-as-you-go]. I’m going to reverse that. We’re going to restore the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s.
BUSH: I’ll tell you what PAYGO means, when you’re a senator from Massachusetts, PAYGO means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends.
He’s proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending, and yet the so-called tax on the rich raises $800 billion by his account. There is a tax gap. And guess who usually ends up filling the tax gap? The middle class.
Source: Third Bush-Kerry Debate, in Tempe Arizona
, Oct 13, 2004
Incentives to create jobs at home and end corporate welfare
We value an America where the middle class is not being squeezed, but doing better.We value an America that exports products, not jobs-American workers should
never have to subsidize the loss of their own job. Next, we will trade and compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field-because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there’s nobody in the world the American worker
can’t compete against. We’re going to return to fiscal responsibility because it is the foundation of our economic strength. Our plan will cut the deficit in half in four years by ending tax giveaways that are nothing more than corporate welfare.
Source: Acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention
, Jul 29, 2004
- We want new incentives to revitalize manufacturing.
- Investment in technology & innovation that will create the good-paying jobs of the future.
- Close the tax
loopholes that reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas. Instead, we will reward companies that create and keep good paying jobs where they belong-in the good old USA.
We can do better on economy--lift people out of poverty
We’re told that outsourcing jobs is good for America. And they say that anyone who thinks otherwise is a pessimist. There is nothing more pessimistic than saying America can’t do better. We can do better and we will. We’re the optimists. For us, this is
a country of the future. We’re the can do people. Let’s not forget what we did in the 1990s. We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and the standard of living for the middle class.
Source: Acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention
, Jul 29, 2004
Base policy on broad growth and progressive taxation
We cannot go back to the 1909s, and we should not simply restore the Clinton administration’s policies. But there are certain bedrock, mainstream principles that can and must power our engines of economic growth: The Bush administration has violated, indeed sometimes even waged war on, all of these foundations of American economic policy.
Source: A Call to Service, by John Kerry, p. 67-8
, Oct 1, 2003
- Economic growth is built on the
talent and hard work of all our people, not just wealthy elites.
- Both private and public investment play a role in building the infrastructure for growth.
- Government must ensure a fair and honest marketplace for business competition,
labor-management cooperation, and investors with enforceable standards of integrity for financial and accounting systems and corporate executives.
- The progressive system of taxes, which distributes the burden of self-government in proportion to the
ability to pay, can and should be maintained without discouraging enterprise or wealth.
No excuse for special tax cuts for the rich
Q: How will you balance the budget?
A: The first thing we have to do is to roll back the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Fiscally responsible tax cuts for working families can grow the economy,
but there is no excuse for special tax cuts for the rich. Then we can create jobs and invest in our people. With the right economic plan, we can turn our economy around, invest in people and reduce deficits all at the same time.
Source: MoveOn.org interview
, Jun 17, 2003
Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending.
- $7 billion Increase in Fund balance appropriation (without fiscal year limitation).
- With respect to the Unemployment Trust Fund and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund: Removes the FY2010 limitation as well as the specific dollar amount for such advances, replacing them with such appropriations as may be necessary.
- Increases from $315 billion to $400 billion the maximum loan principal for FY2009 commitments to guarantee single family loans insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF).
- Increases from $300 billion to $400 billion the limit on new Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae) commitments to issue guarantees under the Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. LEWIS (D, GA-5): This bipartisan bill will provide the necessary funds to keep important transportation projects operating in States around the country. The Highway
Trust Fund will run out of funding by September. We must act, and we must act now.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. CAMP (R, MI-4): [This interim spending is] needed because the Democrats' economic policy has resulted in record job loss, record deficits, and none of the job creation they promised. Democrats predicted unemployment would top out at 8% if the stimulus passed; instead, it's 9.5% and rising. In Michigan, it's above 15%. The Nation's public debt and unemployment, combined, has risen by a shocking 40% [because of] literally trillions of dollars in additional spending under the Democrats' stimulus, energy, and health plans.
We had a choice when it came to the stimulus last February. We could have chosen a better policy of stimulating private-sector growth creating twice the jobs at half the price. That was the Republican plan. Instead, Democrats insisted on their government focus plan, which has produced no jobs and a mountain of debt.
Reference: Omnibus Appropriations Act Amendment;
Bill H.R. 3357
; vote number 2009-S254
on Jul 30, 2009
Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures.
Congressional Summary:Amends federal bankruptcy law to exclude debts secured by the debtor's principal residence that was either sold in foreclosure or surrendered to the creditor.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. PETER WELCH (D, VT-0): Citigroup supports this bill. Why? They're a huge lender. They understand that we have to stabilize home values in order to begin the recovery, and they need a tool to accomplish it. Mortgages that have been sliced and diced into 50 different sections make it impossible even for a mortgage company and a borrower to come together to resolve the problem that they share together.
Sen. DICK DURBIN (D, IL): 8.1 million homes face foreclosure in America today. Last year, I offered this amendment to change the bankruptcy law, and the banking community said: Totally unnecessary. In fact, the estimates were of only 2 million homes in foreclosure last year. America is facing a crisis.
Opponent's argument to vote
Sen. JON KYL (R, AZ): This amendment would allow bankruptcy judges to modify home mortgages by lowering the principal and interest rate on the loan or extending the term of the loan. The concept in the trade is known as cram-down. It would apply to all borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent. Many experts believe the cram-down provision would result in higher interest rates for all home mortgages. We could end up exacerbating this situation for all the people who would want to refinance or to take out loans in the future.
Rep. MICHELE BACHMANN (R, MN-6): Of the foundational policies of American exceptionalism, the concepts that have inspired our great Nation are the sanctity of private contracts and upholding the rule of law. This cramdown bill crassly undercuts both of these pillars of American exceptionalism. Why would a lender make a 30-year loan if they fear the powers of the Federal Government will violate the very terms of that loan?
Reference: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act;
; vote number 2009-S185
on May 6, 2009
Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package.
Congressional Summary:Supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2009.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. DAVID OBEY (D, WI-7): This country is facing what most economists consider to be the most serious and the most dangerous economic situation in our lifetimes. This package today is an $825 billion package that does a variety of things to try to reinflate the economy:
- creating or saving at least 4 million jobs
- rebuilding our basic infrastructure
- providing for job retraining for those workers who need to learn new skills
- moving toward energy independence
- improving our healthcare system so all Americans can have access to quality treatment
- providing tax cuts to lessen the impact of this crisis on America's working families.
argument to vote No:
Rep. JERRY LEWIS (R, CA-51): Most of us would agree that the recent $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is an illustration of how good intentions don't always deliver desired results. When Congress spends too much too quickly, it doesn't think through the details and oversight becomes more difficult. The lesson learned from TARP was this: we cannot manage what we do not measure. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again.
Sen. THAD COCHRAN (R, MS): We are giving the executive branch immense latitude in the disbursement of the spending this bill contains. We are doing so without any documentation of how this spending will stimulate the economy. Normally, this kind of information would be contained in an administration budget. For items that have a short-term stimulative effect, most of us will feel comfortable debating their merits as an emergency measure. But there is a great deal of spending that is not immediately stimulative.
Reference: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act;
; vote number 2009-S061
on Feb 10, 2009
Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy.
Supplemental appropriations for:
- Infrastructure Investments: Transportation: DOT, FAA, AMTRAK, and FTA
- Clean Water (EPA)
- Flood Control and Water Resources (ACE)
- 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities (ED)
- Energy Development (DOE)
- Extension of Unemployment Compensation and Job Training
- Temporary Increase in Medicaid Matching Rate
- Temporary Increase in Food Assistance
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. DAVID OBEY (D, WI-7): Congress has tried to do a number of things that would alleviate the squeeze on the middle class. Meanwhile, this economy is sagging. Jobs, income, sales, and industrial production have all gone down. We have lost 600,000 jobs. We are trying to provide a major increase in investments to modernize our infrastructure and to provide well-paying construction jobs at the same time.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. JERRY LEWIS (R, CA-41):
Just 2 days ago we were debating an $800 billion continuing resolution. Now in addition to being asked to pay for a bailout for Wall Street, taxpayers are being asked to swallow an additional $60 billion on a laundry list of items I saw for the first time just a few hours ago. The Democratic majority is describing this legislation as a "stimulus package" to help our national economy. But let's not fool ourselves. This is a political document pure and simple. If these priorities are so important, why hasn't this bill gone through the normal legislative process? We should have debated each of the items included in this package.
It doesn't take an economist to tell you that the economy needs our help. But what does this Congress do? It proposes to spend billions more without any offsets in spending. The failure to adhere to PAYGO means that this new spending will be financed through additional borrowing, which will prove a further drag on our struggling economy.
Reference: Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act;
; vote number 2008-S206
on Sep 26, 2008
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness.
Amendment intends to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
My amendment says we are going to take about $18 billion as a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion for the programs found by PART, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program.
Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs to create accountability.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The effect of this amendment will simply be to cut domestic discretionary spending $18 billion. Understand the programs that have been identified in the PART program are results not proven. Here are programs affected: Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, child abuse prevention, and treatment. If there is a problem in those programs, they ought to be fixed. We ought not to be cutting Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, and the rest. I urge a "no" vote.
Reference: Allard Amendment;
Bill S.Amdt.491 on S.Con.Res.21
; vote number 2007-090
on Mar 22, 2007
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.
Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs.
Reference: Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act;
Bill S. 1932
; vote number 2005-363
on Dec 21, 2005
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would increase the amount of the budget that would be used to reduce the national debt by $75 billion over 5 year. The debt reduction would be offset by reducing the tax cut in the budget framework from $150 billion
Bill S Con Res 101
; vote number 2000-55
on Apr 5, 2000
Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget.
Approval of the 1998 GOP Budget which would cut spending and taxes.
Status: CR Agreed to Y)78; N)22
Reference: H. Con. Res. 84 as amended;
Bill H. Con. Res. 84
; vote number 1997-92
on May 23, 1997
Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment.
Approval of the balanced-budget constitutional amendment.
Status: Joint Resolution Defeated Y)66; N)34
Reference: S. J. Res. 1;
Bill S. J. Res. 1
; vote number 1997-24
on Mar 4, 1997
Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages.
Kerry co-sponsored requiring full disclosure about subprime mortgages
Sen. DODD: Today we are facing a crisis in the mortgage markets on a scale that has not been seen since the Great Depression: over 2 million homeowners face foreclosure at a loss of over $160 billion in hard-earned home equity; over one out of every 5 subprime loans is currently delinquent. These high default rates have frozen the subprime and jumbo mortgage markets and infected the capital markets to the point where central banks around the world have had to inject liquidity into the system to avoid the crisis from spreading to other segments of the market.
One of the fundamental causes of this serious crisis is abusive and predatory subprime mortgage lending. The Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007 is designed to protect American homeowners from these practices, and prevent this disaster from happening again. The legislation will:
It is important to keep in mind that only about 10% of subprime mortgages have been made to first time home buyers. This market has not been primarily about creating a new set of homeowners; a majority of subprime loans have been refinances. While maintaining access to subprime credit on fair terms is important, too much of the subprime market has actually put the homes and home equity of American families at risk.
- realign the interests of the mortgage industry with borrowers to insure the availability of mortgage capital on fair terms
both for the creation and sustainability of homeownership;
- establish new lending standards to ensure that loans are affordable and fair, and
- provide for adequate remedies to make sure the standards are met; and create a transparent set of rules for the mortgage industry so that capital can safely return to the market without bad lending practices driving out the good.
In the coming months, the housing crisis is going to get worse. We will need to continue to press lenders and servicers to provide real relief for homeowners threatened with foreclosure.
Source: Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act (S.2452 ) 2007-S2452 on Dec 12, 2007
Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy.
Kerry co-sponsored reforming mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy
Source: Foreclosure Prevention Act (S.2636) 2008-S2636 on Feb 13, 2008
- Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 - refinance mortgages originally financed through a qualified subprime loan.
- Makes FY2008 appropriations for emergency needs of states and local governments to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes; and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation for foreclosure mitigation activities.
- Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2008 - Authorizes a bankruptcy plan for individuals with regular income to provide for payment of such claim for a period of up to 30 years. Creates a principal residence homestead exemption for debtors over 55 years of age.
- Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008 - Amends the Truth in Lending Act to set forth additional disclosure requirements governing any extensions of credit (not only mortgages) secured by the dwelling of a consumer.
Ban abusive credit practices & enhance consumer disclosure.
Kerry signed Credit CARD Act
Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 or the Credit CARD Act of 2009:
Source: S.414 & H.R.627 2009-S414 on Feb 11, 2009
- Tile I: Amends the Truth in Lending Act to require advance notice of any increase in the annual percentage rate of interest (APR) pertaining to a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan.
- Imposes a freeze on interest rate terms and fees on canceled cards.
- Sets limits on fees and interest charges, including a prohibition against penalties for on-time payments.
- Allows imposition of an over-the-limit fee only once during a billing cycle. Prohibits its imposition in a subsequent billing cycle.
- Requires fees for cardholder agreement violations and currency exchanges to be reasonable.
- Prohibits a creditor from furnishing information to a consumer reporting agency concerning a newly opened credit card account until the credit card has been used or activated by the consumer.
Title II: Enhanced Consumer Disclosures: Requires the creditor to provide a toll-free telephone number at which the consumer may receive information about accessing credit counseling and debt management services.
- Revises requirements relating to late payment deadlines and penalties.
- Requires a periodic statement of account to disclose: (1) the date by which a payment must be postmarked, if paid by mail, in order to avoid the imposition of a late payment fee; and (2) any possible resulting increase in interest rates for late payments.
- Title III: Protection of Young Consumers: Prohibits issuance of a credit card on behalf of a consumer under age 21, unless the consumer has submitted a written application meeting specified requirements.
Page last updated: Sep 28, 2016