List of House “Progressive Caucus” members who voted against fiscal cliff deal

These are your House “Progressive Caucus” members who voted against the Obama–Boehner–McConnell fiscal “cliff” bill.

If you think Obama gave too much tax-breakage away to his inauguration-funding friends, these are your heroes.

I’ve bolded the Caucus leaders in that group. What … there aren’t any? Bummer that.

Nevertheless, these are your heroes:

Last Name First Name State & District Party Phone Number CPC Member?     Fiscal Deal Vote
Becerra Xavier CA-34 D (202) 225-6235 1 1
Blumenauer Earl OR-03 D (202) 225-4811 1 1
DeFazio Peter OR-04 D (202) 225-6416 1 1
DeLauro Rosa CT-3 D (202) 225-3661 1 1
McDermott Jim WA-07 D (202) 225-3106 1 1
Moran James VA-08 D (202) 225-4376 1 1

Feel free to call and say Thanks. I’m serious. These people didn’t wither under pressure; they didn’t take “Dennis Kucinich’s plane ride.” Points to them. I’m scoring that vote — you can see the point totals above. Thanks, guys.

You’d have expected more No votes from self-branded “progressives,” right? After all, the “deal” was widely denounced by progressive analysts, who feel that even though some good happened — social programs didn’t get the Obama knife, this time — there was far more given away in tax breaks than had to be. More on that shortly; every Dem Yes gave ground cover for more (perhaps cosmetic) Republican No’s.

Think about that. This vote wasn’t close, which means every Dem Yes is a real Yes. I know there’s disagreement about the merits of that deal — but if you think the Dems got less than they could have, and the Dem Yes voters played Follow the NeoLiberal Leader, we agree.

Why do I say “social programs didn’t get the Obama knife, this time”?

I said what I said because it’s coming, that knife, and in only two months’ time. The next run Obama and the Republicans will take at the social programs will be during the “debt ceiling” debate. For more on that, listen to the short clip below. I posted the whole show earlier, but in case you didn’t click to listen, here’s a part of my discussion with Matt Filipowicz about what happened and what’s coming:

Next up, the list of self-branded “progressives” who played Follow-the-Leader (Obama and his New Dem buddies) with Nancy Pelosi’s eager acquiescence. These are the progressives who seem most poised to cave when Obama says “Take that deep soul-killing dive” at debt-ceiling time and asks them to help him cut deep into social insurance. It’s coming.

Stay tuned. This is turning into one of my two subjects this year.


To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

23 Responses to “List of House “Progressive Caucus” members who voted against fiscal cliff deal”

  1. karmanot says:

    California: Primary Pelosi. She has got to go!

  2. karmanot says:

    And we just sit back and watch the lesser evil destroy, once and for all, the safety net for a hundred million Americans.

  3. ezpz says:

    Nah, I doubt it. This was probably known and agreed upon ahead of time. “Leadership” usually allows a few conscience votes to give political cover to a handful of *progressives* when they know the bill will pass comfortably without them. If the so called ‘progressives’ had voted no in large enough numbers to stop the bill, then maybe, just maybe, I would ‘thank’ them.
    But as it stands, they won’t be getting a thank you card from me.

  4. arcadesproject says:

    In O’s Washington, I bet these Progressives are gonna have to eat their lunch all by themself.

  5. karmanot says:

    Woolsey has been unavailable for years

  6. Kim_Kaufman says:

    Whoops… just realized that was Lynn Woolsey’s last vote – she didn’t run again. Also hard to believe Kucinich voted “yes” as his last vote for this piece of crap bill.

  7. Kim_Kaufman says:

    “This is turning into one of my two subjects this year.”
    Good. Me, too. I can’t just watch the looting of this country and do nothing.

  8. Kim_Kaufman says:

    I heard it on good authority that what Kucinich got out of the “plane ride” was that Elizabeth got to sit on Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity committee and a couple of other fluffy personally/socially enriching things that I can’t remember now. :(

  9. Kim_Kaufman says:

    Wonder where “progressive” Lynn Woolsey was for the vote. Might be worth a call to find out and let her know folks are watching..

  10. Ferdiad says:

    It doesn’t have to be a vote that passes by one or two votes to work this way. Again, just look to see if the dissenters on either side voted for their respective party leadership and/or whether the dissenters have been punished by their party. It isn’t about whether the vote passed by one or two, but is about the district each of the reps lives in. are they safe or would they face a primary or general election challenge if they had voted the other way?

  11. Bill_Perdue says:

    What defines Congressional Democrats, self described ‘progressives’ or not, is not by what they say but their role as leaders of a right centrist anti-union pro-war, racist party that refuses to deal with massive poverty, downward spiraling wages, homophobia and misogyny.

    Democrats are Democrats and the left is the left and never the the twain shall meet.

  12. ezpz says:

    If they though that theirs was the deciding vote, do you really think they still would have voted against it?

  13. lynchie says:

    So there are only 6 real liberals>?

  14. lynchie says:

    Come on it is all about play the fear card at first. Oh the clifff, the cliff, the cliff and then passing it but making sure their buddies were looked after.

  15. lynchie says:

    It was never about the bullshit “cliff” it was about how the parties were going to cause some fear and their friends on Wall Street could run some shorts and then how much they thought they could give away. For a Congress which is claiming bankruptcy the give aways at the expense of education, poor and elderly were atrocious.

  16. lynchie says:

    Great idea but never happen. This is what they get elected for. The flow of cash would choke a whale and they will never vote against their best interests and there is sweet fuck all we can do about it. We the electorate have no power, no influence and chances of things changing are bluntly put ZERO!

  17. Ron Thompson says:

    Seems like the obvious answer to “for whatever reason” is that they thought it was an acceptable deal, basically yielding on the $400,000 cutoff in return for getting something valuable to their constituents, an extension of unemployment compensation, and there was very little likelihood that the next deal (and with Obama there’s always a next deal) would be any better. Pelosi had signaled that she was willing to go as high as a million. It would have been very reasonable for the 90% of the Progressive caucus who supported the deal to conclude that they’d better hurry up and approve it before Obama and Pelosi could make it worse.

    Your seriously think that this mixed list of six people is the best the Progressive Caucus has to offer?

  18. wlgriffi says:

    It’s what’s known as bi-partinship. Or,Business AS Usual

  19. Mike Meyer says:

    Third Party, Folks.

    The other two are robbing YOU.

  20. akglow says:

    I didn’t understand how so much in tax breaks could be given to Rum producers. Then after further reading, I found that Former Sens. John Breaux, D-La., and Trent Lott, R-Miss have become a lobbying duo, for not only Liquor giant Diageo, but General Electric and Citigroup as well. Too bad Congress doesn’t pass a law about Congress members working as lobbyists.

  21. GaiusPublius says:

    I get that logic, Ferdiad, and generally you’re right, esp in a close vote. But this bill passed with a comfortable 44-vote cushion. These are eager Yes votes, for whatever reason.


  22. Ferdiad says:

    yeah, are you really as bad as Hannity? I laughed when he applauded the “real conservatives” that voted against the deal. Hogwash. Like everything else, the two parties got together in a closed door and figured out how many people from each delegation were necessary to get the bill passed. Then, people on each side could register protest votes so that nitwits on both sides could fan out to their respective bases and say “see, people in our party are still fighting for us” to cover up the special interest giveaways that both sides agreed to in this deal. All you have to do is this – look no further than leadership votes to see if these congresspeople voted to keep their respective leaders in place.

  23. Ron Thompson says:

    Respectfully disagree. If 90% of the Progressive Caucus was willing to support the bill, my conclusion would be, not that the 90% is wrong, but that the 10% took the opportunity to cast a protest vote when their vote was not needed. I can think of 50 members I would rate more highly than Jim Moran and Jim McDermott, certainly including Tammy Baldwin, Barbara Lee, Yvette Clarke, and Donna Edwards. The fact that Obama is likely to make a bad deal later does not seem to me to be an adequate reason to oppose this deal, which included an extension of unemployment benefits.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS