Republicans are Weak on National Security.

[Coexist]

The Senate today REJECTED, pretty much along party lines, a proposal set forth by Senator Baucus D-MT that would have required a study of the "economic and security implications" of our foreign debt.

How can any Senator, who wraps their political future around National Security NOT vote for this? It is so far beyond hypocritical, I cannot think of a proper word for it.

Our nation's fiscal well-being is increasingly placed in the hands of foreign debtors. These debtors can use this power to lean on our politicians to enact legislation that is not always in the best interest of our country.

Is merely looking into this such a threat to those in power, that is has to be squashed. Votes like this make me afraid... very afraid. What do they know, that they do not want US to know.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r109:./temp/~r109V79j46

SA 3131. Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln) proposed an amendment to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 47, increasing the statutory limit on the public debt; as follows:


At the end of the joint resolution, insert the following:

``Sec. Study.--(a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other appropriate agencies of the United States Government, shall conduct a study to examine the economic effects of the holding of United States publicly-held debt by foreign governments, foreign central banks, other foreign institutions, and foreign individuals.

(b) The Secretary shall transmit that study to the Congress within 180 days of the date of enactment of this legislation.

(c) The study shall provide an analysis of:

``(1) for each year from 1980 to the present, the amount and term of foreign-owned debt held by the public, broken down by foreign governments, foreign central banks, other foreign institutions, and foreign individuals, and expressed in nominal terms and as a percentage of the total amount of publicly-held debt in each year;

``(2) the economic effects that the increased foreign ownership of United States publicly-held debt has on

``(A) long-term interest rates in the United States,

``(B) global average interest rates,

``(C) the value of the United States dollar,

``(D) United States capital market liquidity,

``(E) the cost of private capital in the United States,

``(F) the generation of employment in the United States through foreign affiliates, and

``(G) the growth in real gross domestic product of the United States;

``(3) (A) for each year from 1980 to the present, the effect of foreign debt on the United States income account,

``(B) the predicted effect over the next 20 years, and

``(C) the effect of the deteriorating income account on the overall United States current account deficit;

``(4) the ability of the Department of the Treasury to track purchases of publicly held debt in secondary and tertiary markets, or, if this ability does not exist, the implications of that inability for fiscal policy, monetary policy, and the predictability of capital markets;

``(5) the effect that foreign ownership of United States publicly-held debt has or could have on United States trade policy;

``(6) whether the level of United States debt owned by China may adversely affect the ability of the United States to negotiate with China regarding currency manipulation by China;

``(7) the effect of the increase of foreign holdings of United States debt held by the public on national security; and

``(8) the implicit tax burden that results from foreign ownership of United States debt held by the public, defined as the per capita amount that a United States Federal income taxpayer would pay in annual Federal income taxes to fully service such foreign debt during each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''

...What is not to love???

Vote tally:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00053
Bloomberg Article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a8BKSum9ZWeU&refer=us
<snip>
Lawmakers also rejected, 55-44, a Democratic proposal that would have required the Treasury Department to study the economic and security implications of the nation's foreign-held debt.

[DBoon]

1. If Carter lost for "giving away our canal"

Then the republicans deserve to lose big over the ports issue

[blm]

2. That was a very strong proposal by Baucus that deserved more attention.

This is EXACTLY what Dems should be proposing, but the American people are never going to hear what Baucus proposed or how important it was for our future security.

[Coexist]

4. The fact that the Republicans rejected it should be really big news

How do we make it really big news??

[blm]

8. heheh.... don't ask me... I'm pushing ANWR, voting machines, and gonna add

this Baucus proposal to send around. I got my nos on censure from Dole and Burr. But, I mostly send stuff to newspaper newsrooms.

This is a damn shame, though. Proposals like this make SENSE to the American people. It would be a big image boost for Dems at a crucial time. No wonder the media isn't discussing it.

I'm gonna call Baucus' office and ask about getting airtime and resubmitting the bill.

[Coexist]

12. that is a great idea - Baucus should publicize this.

It would be a refreshing change from seeing Biden on my t.v. all the time.

[sable302]

3. Ouch

Republican head spinning can be a new source of renewable energy. Contract with America was only a decade ago. How things change.

[yorgatron]

6. "Republican head spinning can be a new source of renewable energy."

ha ha! :P
if we only had a flip-flop machine powered by republicans,we could wean ourselves from foreign oil...

[Coexist]

13. Lol!

:thumbsup:

[AndyA]

5. The Republicans are hypocrites!

The information these studies would have garnered could help America in future years to not repeat mistakes made in the past. The "do as I say, not as I do" Repugs don't want any accountability for their dirty deeds. They have been pimping the United States like a common street tramp ever since they took control of government, and they don't want it to stop.

[blm]

16. Exactly - Like the way Bush refused to read the study of global terrorism

that was handed to him on Jan 30, 2001. The Hart Rudman Report on Global Terror was a two and a half year study of global terrorism.

Bush chose to NOT READ IT.

[librechik]

7. second day in a row, Republicans vote AGAINST security

yesterday they voted down every attempt by Dems to add oversight and accountability to Port laws. The Republicans are nothing but brain dead cultists.

[blm]

9. Yep, but they control the media and that's why we're not hearing important

issues and votes like this discussed on the news shows.

BTW, librechik - you make an excellent point, and it would make a powerful thread - alot of us are even missing these important stories because we've been too narrow in our focus this week.

[Coexist]

10. Let's take a look at what Republicans are against, shall we:

You mean this?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00047

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP03054:
<snip>
S.AMDT.3054
Amends: S.CON.RES.83
Sponsor: Sen Menendez, Robert (submitted 3/14/2006) (proposed 3/14/2006)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To provide an additional $965 million to make our ports more secure by increasing port security grants, increasing inspections, improving existing programs, and increasing research and development, and to fully offset this additional funding by closing tax loopholes.

And this?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00045

Statement of Purpose: To provide $5 billion for our emergency responders so that they can field effective and reliable interoperable communications equipment to respond to natural disasters, terrorist attacks and the public safety needs of America's communities and fully offset this by closing tax loopholes and collecting more from the tax gap.

... even stuff Bush says he wants:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP03039:
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To make energy more affordable and sustainable, to increase our national security through foreign oil replacement with biofuels and alternative fuels and advanced/hybrid vehicle use, to accelerate production and market penetration of clean and renewable energy technologies and generation, and to more fully utilize energy efficiency and conservation technologies and practices

[librechik]

11. exactly--I hope Dems keep those stats handy

next time some pompous TV twit declares the Pukkkes are strong on defense. They're only strong on defending their own behinds and throwing everyone else to the wolves.

[Coexist]

14. keeping a list to rattle off at campaign stops doesn't seem

to work that well.

I would rather they do a media blitz immediately following the vote-a-thon.

[blm]

15. DAMN - we need more EYEBALLS for this stuff.

This is the defining issue for 2006 and too many are letting it pass by with no notice.

[Coexist]

17. I agree - the front page of DU has a GREAT screenshot

of one of the votes.