Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Charles Melancon on Budget & Economy

Democrat


Stimulus package will avoid God-awful recession like 1980s

Melancon voted for the stimulus package, saying he recalled the 1980s, the last time the country faced an economic collapse. "It was pretty God awful," Melancon said.

Vitter criticized the measure as wasteful spending. Today, unemployment stands at 10 percent with about 80 percent of the stimulus money dedicated. "It immediately increased spending and debt," Vitter said. "At the same time, I didn't think it would lead to significant job creation."

Source: Baton Rouge Advocate on of 2010 Louisiana Senate debate Oct 18, 2010

TARP package will avoid depression from doing nothing

Bush's Wall Street bailout, or Troubled Asset Relief Program, led to $700 billion in government money going to financial institutions in danger of collapsing. Melancon said he voted for the bill after consulting with business leaders and economists who feared an economic free fall. "They all agreed that doing nothing would lead us into a depression," Melancon said.

At every turn, Vitter tried to thwart the program. He introduced legislation aimed at blocking the use of $250 billion of the TARP money, which was approved in two installments. He called for any money returned to the federal government by the institutions taking part in the program to be dedicated to reducing the federal deficit instead of supporting further spending. Vitter also wanted an ending date for the program. "It played out to do what I feared, to expand the power and the role of the federal government," Vitter said.

Vitter's proposed measures did not pass. The government has received most of its money back.

Source: Baton Rouge Advocate on of 2010 Louisiana Senate debate Oct 18, 2010

Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending.

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-H659 on Jul 29, 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:

  1. creating or saving at least 4 million jobs
  2. rebuilding our basic infrastructure
  3. providing for job retraining for those workers who need to learn new skills
  4. moving toward energy independence
  5. improving our healthcare system so all Americans can have access to quality treatment
  6. providing tax cuts to lessen the impact of this crisis on America's working families.

Opponent's 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; Bill H.R.1 ; vote number 2009-H046 on Jan 28, 2009

Voted YES on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief.

Congressional Summary:Requires specified depository institutions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to report periodically on their use of TARP assistance. Requires federal banking regulatory agencies to examine annually the use of TARP funds made by the deposit institutions.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D, MA-4): Last year, after we responded to the urgent pleas of the Bush administration to authorize the $700 billion deployment of Federal funds to unstick the credit markets, many of us became very unhappy, [because Bush] repudiated commitments to use a significant part of the fund to diminish foreclosures. If we do not pass this bill today, we will make no progress in what is the single biggest economic problem we've been facing, namely, the foreclosure crisis.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. RON PAUL (R, TX-14): There has been a lot of money spent to try to bail out the financial industry, and nothing seems to be working. I think it's mainly because we haven't admitted that excessive spending can cause financial problems, & excessive debt and inflation can cause problems.

Actually, the recession is therapy for all of the mistakes, but the mistakes come, basically, from a Federal Reserve system that's causing too many people to make mistakes. Interest rates are lower than they should be, so they don't save. That contributes to what we call "moral hazard" as well as the system of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac system. With the assumption that we're all going to be bailed out, people say, "Well, no sweat because, if there is a mistake, the government will come to our rescue." A private FDIC would never permit this massive malinvestment. There would be regulations done in the marketplace, and there would not be this distortion that we've ended up with.

Reference: TARP Reform and Accountability Act; Bill H.R.384 ; vote number 2009-H026 on Jan 21, 2009

Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler.

Congressional Summary:

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D, MA-4): This economy is in the worst shape that it has been in since the Great Depression. This Congress voted 2 months ago to advance $25 billion to the auto industry to promote innovation. This $15 billion is an additional "bridge loan."

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SPENCER BACHUS (R, AL-6): We all understand that the bankruptcy of either GM or Chrysler would have a cascading effect on other manufacturers. But I cannot support this plan because it spends taxpayer money without any real promise to return the industry to profitability. I see several glaring flaws. We are creating a new car czar to manage these companies from Washington; not a CEO, but a car czar. Second, this legislation actually imposes new and expensive mandates on our automobile companies. Third, this legislation imposes Federal Government management on the Big Three, the wisdom of Washington. It is clear that the management of these companies have made mistakes, many mistakes, but to set up a command and control Federal bureaucrat is exactly the wrong solution.

Rep. RON PAUL (R, TX-14): The problems that we are facing today date back to 1971. But we don't seem to want to go back and find out how financial bubbles form and why they burst. Instead, we just carry on doing the same old thing and never look back. We spend more money, we run up more debt, we print more money, and we think that is going to solve the problem that was created by spending too much money, running up debt, printing too much money. Today, we are talking about tinkering on the edges without dealing with the big problem.

Reference: Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act; Bill HR.7321 ; vote number 2008-H690 on Dec 10, 2008

Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy.

Congressional Summary:
    Supplemental appropriations for:
  1. Infrastructure Investments: Transportation: DOT, FAA, AMTRAK, and FTA
  2. Clean Water (EPA)
  3. Flood Control and Water Resources (ACE)
  4. 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities (ED)
  5. Energy Development (DOE)
  6. Extension of Unemployment Compensation and Job Training
  7. Temporary Increase in Medicaid Matching Rate
  8. 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; Bill S.3604&HR7110 ; vote number 2008-H660 on Sep 26, 2008

Voted YES on revitalizing severely distressed public housing.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2008:
  • Makes promoting housing choice among low-income families one of the purposes of the HOPE VI grant program for revitalization of severely distressed public housing.
  • Prohibits the award of demolition-only grants
  • Specifies requirements for revitalization plans including:
    1. involvement of public housing residents;
    2. a program for relocation;
    3. one-for-one replacement of demolished dwelling units; and
    4. green developments.

    SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. WATERS: This bill preserves public housing. The administration eliminated the one-for-one replacement requirement in 1996, effectively triggering a national sloughing off of our Nation's public housing inventory. Housing authorities have consistently built back fewer units than they have torn down and, as a result, over 30,000 units have been lost. I urge you to support our Nation's low-income families and to preserve our housing stock.

    OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. HENSARLING: President Reagan once said that the nearest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program, and I don't think there is any better case study than perhaps the HOPE VI program. If there was ever a program that cried out for termination, it's this one.

    This program began in 1992 with a very noble purpose of taking 86,000 units of severely distressed public housing and replacing them, demolishing them. Well, it achieved its mission. But somewhere along the line we had this thing in Washington known as mission creep.

    We already have 80-plus Federal housing programs, and the budget for Federal housing programs has almost doubled in the last 10 years, from $15.4 billion to more than $30 billion now. So it's very hard to argue that somehow Federal housing programs have been shortchanged.

    LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Bill passed House, 271-130

    Reference: HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act; Bill H.R.3524 ; vote number 08-HR3524 on Jan 17, 2008

    Voted YES on regulating the subprime mortgage industry.

    H.R.3915: To reform consumer mortgage practices and provide accountability for such practices, to establish licensing and registration requirements for residential mortgage originators. Prohibits certain creditor practices with respect to high-cost mortgages, including:

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    Rep. FRANK: This legislation seeks to prevent a repetition of events that caused one of the most serious financial crises in recent times. We have a worldwide problem economically, with a terrible shortage of credit. Innovations in the mortgage industry, in themselves good and useful, but conducted in such a completely unregulated manner as to have led to this crisis. The fundamental principle of the bill is not to put remedies into place, but to stop future problems from occurring in the first place. We have had two groups of mortgage originators: banks subject to the regulation of the bank regulators; and then mortgage loans made by brokers who were subject to no regulation. The secondary market has been on the whole useful but, having been unregulated, has caused some problems.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    Rep. HENSARLING: This is a bad bill for homeowners in America. There is no doubt that this Nation faces a great challenge in the subprime market, but this piece of legislation is going to make the situation worse. Clearly, there has to be enforcement against fraud in the subprime market. But what Congress should not do is essentially outlaw the American Dream for many struggling families who may be of low income, who may have checkered credit pasts, for whom a subprime mortgage is the only means to purchase a home.

    Reference: Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act; Bill HR3915 ; vote number 2007-1118 on Nov 15, 2007

    2010 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Budget & Economy: Charles Melancon on other issues:
    LA Gubernatorial:
    Bobby Jindal
    LA Senatorial:
    David Vitter
    Mary Landrieu

    Dem. Freshmen
    in 112th Congress:

    AL-7:Terri Sewell
    CA-33:Karen Bass
    DE-0:John Carney
    FL-17:Frederica Wilson
    HI-1:Colleen Hanabusa
    LA-2:Cedric Richmond
    MA-10:Bill Keating
    MI-13:Hansen Clarke
    RI-1:David Cicilline
    GOP Freshmen
    in 112th Congress:

    AL-2:Martha Roby
    AL-5:Mo Brooks
    AZ-1:Paul Gosar
    AZ-3:Ben Quayle
    AZ-5:David Schweikert
    AR-1:Rick Crawford
    AR-2:Tim Griffin
    AR-3:Steve Womack
    CA-19:Jeff Denham
    CO-3:Scott Tipton
    CO-4:Cory Gardner
    FL-12:Dennis Ross
    FL-2:Steve Southerland
    FL-21:Mario Diaz-Balart
    FL-22:Allen West
    FL-24:Sandy Adams
    FL-25:David Rivera
    FL-5:Rich Nugent
    FL-8:Dan Webster
    GA-2:Mike Keown
    GA-7:Rob Woodall
    GA-8:Austin Scott
    ID-1:Raul Labrador
    IL-8:Joe Walsh
    IL-10:Bob Dold
    IL-11:Adam Kinzinger
    IL-14:Randy Hultgren
    IL-17:Bobby Schilling
    IL-8:Joe Walsh
    IN-3:Marlin Stutzman
    IN-4:Todd Rokita
    IN-8:Larry Bucshon
    IN-9:Todd Young
    KS-1:Tim Huelskamp
    KS-3:Kevin Yoder
    KS-5:Mike Pompeo
    LA-3:Jeff Landry
    MD-1:Andy Harris
    MI-1:Dan Benishek
    MI-2:Bill Huizenga
    MI-3:Justin Amash
    MI-7:Tim Walberg
    MN-8:Chip Cravaack
    MO-4:Vicky Hartzler
    MO-7:Billy Long
    MS-1:Alan Nunnelee
    MS-4:Steven Palazzo
    GOP Freshmen
    in 111th Congress:

    NC-2:Renee Ellmers
    ND-0:Rick Berg
    NH-2:Charlie Bass
    NH-1:Frank Guinta
    NJ-3:Jon Runyan
    NM-2:Steve Pearce
    NV-3:Joe Heck
    NY-13:Michael Grimm
    NY-19:Nan Hayworth
    NY-20:Chris Gibson
    NY-24:Richard Hanna
    NY-25:Ann Marie Buerkle
    NY-29:Tom Reed
    OH-1:Steve Chabot
    OH-15:Steve Stivers
    OH-16:Jim Renacci
    OH-18:Bob Gibbs
    OH-6:Bill Johnson
    OK-5:James Lankford
    PA-10:Tom Marino
    PA-11:Lou Barletta
    PA-3:Mike Kelly
    PA-7:Patrick Meehan
    PA-8:Mike Fitzpatrick
    SC-1:Tim Scott
    SC-3:Jeff Duncan
    SC-4:Trey Gowdy
    SC-5:Mick Mulvaney
    SD-0:Kristi Noem
    TN-3:Chuck Fleischmann
    TN-4:Scott DesJarlais
    TN-6:Diane Black
    TN-8:Stephen Fincher
    TX-17:Bill Flores
    TX-23:Quico Canseco
    TX-27:Blake Farenthold
    VA-2:Scott Rigell
    VA-5:Robert Hurt
    VA-9:Morgan Griffith
    WA-3:Jaime Herrera
    WI-7:Sean Duffy
    WI-8:Reid Ribble
    WV-1:David McKinley
    Abortion
    Budget/Economy
    Civil Rights
    Corporations
    Crime
    Drugs
    Education
    Energy/Oil
    Environment
    Families/Children
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Immigration
    Infrastructure/Technology
    Jobs
    Principles/Values
    Social Security
    Tax Reform
    War/Iraq/Mideast
    Welfare/Poverty

    Main Page
    Profile
    LA politicians
    [Title9]

    Page last updated: Mar 08, 2011