Kerry floor statement on the debt ceiling

[ProSense]

Kerry:

The full text of Senator Kerry’s remarks, as prepared for delivery, is below:

Mr. President, with the deadline for default of August 2nd just a week away, if anyone in Washington was still under the illusion that this ugly political process is without consequence, they should read today's article in the Boston Globe with the headline “Uncertainty has Mass. Firms wary of hiring.” The articles states “Still cautious from the last recession, many business owners worry that government leaders will be unable to reach an agreement, while others are concerned about exactly the opposite: that any agreement will invariably include spending cuts and weaken an already lackluster recovery.”

Mr. President, this is no way to provide economic stewardship and it is no way to run a government.

We need to reach across the aisle and come together on a deal before an obstinate ideological rigidity does even more harm to the fragile economy. We need to put an end to the time clocks displaying how long until default. And in a global economy where we know everything and every market is interconnected, this is not the message that the United States should be sending around the world.

Back in 1983, President Reagan wrote that “Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar on the exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result”.

Almost 30 years later, some House Republicans have turned their back on the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Instead, they are playing a cynical game of chicken with the President, the Congress and the American people by refusing to negotiate a compromise agreement to extend the debt limit. Their negotiating strategy: don’t negotiate – do what we say no matter how dangerous or ill thought out.

In taking this extreme approach, the House Republicans have made a dirty word out of the basic tenet of American democracy – compromise. Let’s be clear. The House Republican Party has taken this approach even though they know and agree that what Ronald Reagan said then is true today. Our nation cannot afford to default on our debts.

“Experts say that even a short-term crisis could lead to a permanent stain on Treasuries. It could prove particularly damaging to the willingness of foreign investors to buy Treasuries…If foreign investors start to shy away from Treasuries, they will become much less liquid. ‘You could never get that liquidity premium back if you create a precedent,’ says Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP. "That's the thing that would be irreparable." The end result of such a scenario: higher interest rates in the U.S.”

Why are they taking this extreme approach? Because they want to cut federal spending and cut entitlement spending without increasing any revenues. They know there are not enough votes to pass the House budget so a group of extremists are trying any way possible to get their unrealistic budget passed.

The Boehner plan would require draconian entitlement policy changes. To meet the $1.8 trillion in cuts over the next decade without any increase in revenues, policymakers would likely be forced to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for current retirees or eviscerate the safety net for low-income children, parents, senior citizens, and people with disabilities.

The Boehner plan would require another vote to extend the Debt Limit in just six months. A short-term plan is neither necessary nor wise and most importantly would not provide the certainty our financial markets need to create jobs. It risks a downgrade of our nation’s credit rating which would increase interest rates and impose an automatic tax increase for every American with a mortgage, car loan, student loan or credit card.

Mr. President, no one knows the consequences to our economy that would come from a downgrade of our nation’s credit rating. At a time when the global economy is still facing huge problems, any downgrade of our nation’s credit rating could have disastrous effects for our financial system and the global finance system. Not doing all that we can to avoid a downgrade is an unacceptable risk to take.

The Boehner plan isn’t supported on Wall Street, “From the markets’ point of view, a two-stage plan is a non-starter because we now know it is amateur hour on Capitol Hill and we don’t want to be painted in this corner again,” said Christian Cooper, head of U.S. dollar derivatives trading in New York at Jefferies & Co. “There is significant risk of a downgrade with a deal that ties further cuts to another vote only a few months down the road given the significant resistance to do the right thing now,” Cooper said.

The President will veto the Speaker’s plan. So Senators: It is time to stop discussing proposals that will go nowhere.

In an effort to forge a bipartisan compromise, Majority Leader Reid has developed a proposal are providing a solution that will cut spending to meet or exceed the amount of the debt-ceiling increase through 2012 and it will not include revenues. The spending cuts included in the Reid amendment are only those that Republicans have previously agreed to.

The Reid proposal would give our economy the certainty it needs to create jobs today, not six months from now. My Republican colleagues like to talk about how important it is for us to give businesses certainty. So let me ask, how could businesses possibly feel certain about the future when they look at this chaotic debate? Small business confidence has been dropping for the last three months. Is this really the signal we want to send them?

Just last week, Speaker Boehner was discussing with the President a “grand bargain” that included $800 billion in increased revenues. It was a step towards a balanced approach. Less than one week later, Speaker Boehner’s proposal like Majority Leader Reid’s proposal includes the creation of a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, but it leaves revenues off the table. It provides an unbalanced approached.

The Majority Leader’s proposal includes the following duty for the new Joint Committee “may include recommendations and legislative language on tax reform” In addition, it includes the following: “As a part of developing the joint committee’s recommendations and legislation, the joint committee shall consider existing bipartisan plans to reduce the deficit, including plans developed by Senators or Members of the House.”

The Speaker’s approach includes no such language. This is a snub to the hard work of the “Gang of Six” and other bipartisan plans. The Deficit Commission was co-chaired by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson. All this work is being ignored because it takes the realistic approach that to resolve the deficit, a balance approach which includes revenues is needed.

Over the last year, we have seen may bipartisan plans put forward on the debt limit. The Gang of Six continues the tradition of the Senate where a group of members reach across the aisle and tackle the tough issues. This is how we got a budget deal in 1990 and 1997. We will not be able to resolve the current impasse until my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and particularly those in the other chamber decide to put aside their ideologies and decide what is best for the country.

We need to put politics aside. This should not be a debate about who wins the next election. It should be a debate about how we build an America that is capable of out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building the rest of the globe. The world is watching to see if we can rise to the occasion and behave like serious lawmakers in these serious times. We must be responsible about our debt limit and not let political posturing jeopardize the national and economic security of our country.

But Mr. President, we can’t be responsible if we don’t first get serious. Too much is at stake for the senate to do anything less than the senate was intended to do at moments like this, which is focus and get the job done that we were sent here to do.

[INdemo]

1. Oh how much better off we would be if Democrats would have

defended their ground and the rightful President would have taken his place in history in 2004...Just imagine now under a second term of President Kerry..

[LonePirate]

3. What if the rightful President had taken office back in 2000 and W never occupied the White House?

[barbtries]

7. my automatic response as well

either way we'd be a hella better off today.

[INdemo]

12. Yes also true but

one would have thought after the election was stolen in 2000 that there was no way it would happen again. in 2004 ..Surprise.
And I am beginning to believe the Republicans stole it again in 2008..Obama is sure as hell acting more like a Republican than the Democrat we elected..

[OwnedByFerrets]

14. Actually they didnt have to steal it in 2008.

Had they really wanted a Repug in place in 2008. we would have one(by theft). They didnt want a repug in the presidency. They got exactly what they wanted....a democrat to blame all of Monkeyboy's problems on. What they DIDNT count on was how easy it was going to be to manipulate this president.

[woolldog]

4. you mean, the rightful President in 2000.

Imagine what the US would look like if Gore had assumed the Presidency.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

15. Depends on who the inevitable 2004 Republican winner was

(I say that because it's the likelihood, not because I think Gore, essentially a slightly more conservative Democrat than Clinton at that point, would have been an overt failure undeserving of re-election.)

Maybe if Bush never happened, they'd have opted for a moderate. On the other hand, they may have convinced themselves that the "Compassionate Conservative" label is what failed him and expedited the election of an even bigger nut.

[Mass]

2. Video here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x603711

[MannyGoldstein]

5. "Make no mistake: we must slash Social Security

now 'scuse me while I give the Republicans 80% of what they want, and then cave on the final 20%. It's the Serious Adult Bipartisan thing to do."

[karynnj]

6. Not at all what Kerry said

[MannyGoldstein]

9. But it's what Obama has effectively said.

And I hope that my senior Senator doesn't buy into it.

[CakeGrrl]

13. "has effectively said" - in other words, HE NEVER SAID IT.

You've just convinced yourself that it's what he wants to do.

Don't forget your helmet if you're going over the cliff.

[Major Hogwash]

8. The Republicans will never "reach across the aisle" so it's just crap to dream they would.

If those fuckers ever did reach across the aisle, they'd fall over because they'd have to lean to the left.

Hahahaha!!!

[Fearless]

10. He's not saying we should be bipartisan...

He's saying that Republicans should get off their "principles" and do what is right for the country. He stated that what is right is for the debt ceiling to be raised. He did not state that Democrats need to do any compromising. He stated that most of the problem was from the Republicans in the House.

Just to clarify.

[YvonneCa]

11. Thanks, Prosense. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

16. I used to like me some Kerry too.

I campaigned for him just like I did for Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Obama. But the minute I saw him stride onto the stage at the convention with his I-can-kill-Arabs-too John Kerry reporting for duty shtick, I knew the party was in for it. I say images of poor Dukakis riding around in the tank. I suspect that the advisor who thought us the reporting-for-duty stunt was a republican plant.

Problem here is that we have another Democrat calling for cuts instead of real revenue. Calling for cooperation with the part of the party that refuses to touch rich people (isn't Kerry a millionaire?) but wants to cut SS which has no effect on the debt. I do like Kerry. But he is woefully out of touch with America, the America of 2011 and the America infested with a crazed republican party.

[karynnj]

17. This is a lot of nonsense

1) Kerry never was an "I can kill Arabs too" person. He always for diplomacy first, but the reality was that we were in Iraq. However, if you bothered to hear Kerry's speech on Iraq, even in 2004, he was speaking of some withdrawals by the end of 2005. He also spoke in the debates of no permanent bases. You forget that in 2005, Feingold, with his plan and Kerry with "the path forward" were the two mainstream Democrats, offering ways out -in roughly the same time frame. In 2006, they combined for Kerry/Feingold.

The reporting for duty was a Cleland line that Kerry really liked as his theme was a call to service. Cleland, gladly told Kerry that if he wanted to use it, Cleland wouldn't.

2) Kerry's speech, if you listened to it and other speeches, speaks of the wealthiest paying more - something he always was for.

3) Kerry has been adamant that SS should not be cut.

4) Yes Kerry is a millionaire and his wife a billionaire, but so were many the Democrats you have no problem with. The fact is that he has a solid record of voting for programs to help people who have less.

5) Kerry has been one of few leaders of his stature who has consistently been calling the radical Republicans what they are.Roadblock Republicans was his phrase back in the Bush years.

[Jakes Progress]

18. Potato, potato

1. His spotlight moment at the convention was presenting himself as a warrior. Don't even pretend that his "reporting for duty moment" was anything but a plea for the moderates that the DLC thought wouldn't elect a Democrat because Democrats were "soft" on the war.

2. Not the one quoted. He backs the plan that leaves the rich tax cuts in place.

3. In this speech he backs the plan the cuts SS.

4. You have no idea which Democrats I have no problem with. Actually I have no real problems with Kerry. His record is good. Not solid. Not perfect. He is a senator. Senators make deals. He is a nice guy who gets attention because he was a presidential candidate. I don't really see any leading roles he has played. He is a commenter. I like many of his comments.

5. Calling the roadblock republicans is not exactly hard-hitting. Like Obama, he is mild in his condemnation. I guess that leaves him room for the lunch room deals that Senators need to make, but I wouldn't all him hard-hitting. He was too soft in his presidential campaign. Perhaps it was advisors. Perhaps it is his nature. But there is no way he should have come close to losing.


Hey. I like Kerry. Like I said. I put in many, many hours campaigning for him. But this speech was not very inspiring if you believe that SS has nothing to do with the debt, if you believe that this is all kabuki, if you believe that we are being shock doctrined. I believe all of those. Kerry has had some fine moments. This plea to accept cuts to SS is not one of them.

[karynnj]

20. You are wrong

1) Of course Kerry was trying to win the people in the middle at his convention. The fact is he was going to get the left anti-war vote - and by and large he did. He had 9 million more votes than Gore, so arguing that large numbers stayed home is not believable and Nader and the Green party candidate got very few votes. I am not saying the left was happy - they weren't. Most of the left media was extremely agree that they did not get Dean - and so angry at Kerry, that many wrote things they had to know were not true. (Like Nichols in a plea that people then support Edwards - saying with no backup that Edwards was better on the environment - in spite of the fact that the record he did have was mediocre (a score in the 60s from the LCV vs Kerry's lifetime 96% and his leadership here.)

2) Although he backs the Reid plan - though he adds that he thinks there should be tax cuts. The reality is that the tax cuts can not pass - in either House. The only possible way to get them is to NOT extend the Bush tax cuts - as it is easier to block action than pass anything. Kerry has had at least 3 Senate speeches where he has made the case for the wealthy paying more, but this was a speech on the debt level.

3) He absolutely does not back cutting social security in the speech. He has said often in the last year that with minor tweaks SS is good for the century - and the tweak he spoke of was raising the income cap on the payroll tax. The Reid plan does not cut Social Security. (Obama has suggested possibly cutting benefits, Kerry really didn't.)

4) You are right that I don't know which Democrats you do not have a problem with - though I've seen your posts enough to have a good idea. You were pretty negative about Obama in the general election - and you had before that preferred Clinton. It was also clear that you liked Gore. Even in your statement here, it was clear that of the candidates you campaigned for, it sounds like Dukakis and Kerry were the ones you thought least of.

5) If you are saying that Kerry is not Grayson or Weiner - I agree and he is much the better for that. Kerry's innate politeness and his dignified manner have in fact allowed him to make very strong charges - in a rational, reasonable way. This was likely why Obama used him as a surrogate in teh primary and general election.

[Jakes Progress]

21. You are disingenuous

1. Of course you are right that he was selling out during the convention. That was bad, but it was childish and cartoonish to do the little salute. Reminded the crowd I was with (Democratic Party workers) of Benny Hill. He was stiff. He was a better person than his campaigning. You are talking to someone who supported Kerry in the primaries over Dean. But he was caught up in the conventional wisdom of the time that the middle wouldn't vote for someone who was "soft" on defense. Playing the war hero image and talking tough was not him. He let himself be "guided". I think it was misguided. (Who said 9 million stayed home. What argument are you making and with whom?)

2. I didn't say he was an ogre that wanted to eat old people. I said he is backing a plan, actually speaking in favor of a plan, and releasing speeches in favor of a plan that cuts SS and Medicare. Like Obama, too much willing to bow to republican-republican generated hysteria. He has stature. He has a solid backing for his seat. He could do better than genuflect.

3. Yes he does. Just because he may not like it, and may wish it wasn't there, the plan he is pushing and pleading for in the speech cuts SS. He didn't say that he wouldn't support a plan that cuts SS. He said he wants wider support for a plan that cuts SS. Read the speech. Where does he say he will not support the Reid plan? Do you know what the Reid plan is?

4. You have no idea what you are talking about. I supported Obama in the general election with money and time. I put in several hundred hours campaigning for Obama. I sat in dozens of living rooms with undecided voters, convincing them to vote for Obama. So you are willing to make up stuff whole cloth. That is not a good trait. I put in many hours for both Kerry and Dukakis. You seem to be one of those that feel one has to idolize every candidate. I've never idolized any political candidate. It is not healthy and it is not wise. So I can complain about candidates and support them. Your silly statement that I seemed to like Dukakis and Kerry the least is not only evidence of your inability to understand what is said, it is wrong. I thought Kerry was a good man for the job. I supported him over Dean. I was even more proud to work for Dukakis. I admire him immensely. He was an honest and decent man who got screwed. Kitty would have been a kick-ass first lady. So. You still don't know shit about my preferences. And I will put up the number of hours I have worked in the past for Democratic candidates, local, state, and national against anyones.

5. Again. Who are you arguing with? When did I bring up Grayson or Weiner? Do I get to conclude that you hate these two Democrats because of your statement? Kerry is a quiet, stiff, dignified man. It hasn't helped him or us. Tell me the changes he has created. Tell me the great progressive changes he has wrought.

This was a pedestrian speech, begging people to give in and support a bill that cuts SS and Medicare while not touching one red cent of the rich man's tax cut. Kerry can do better than this.

[karynnj]

22. I am stating my opinions and they are as honest as yours

1) You are twisting what I said. Nearly every review of Kerry's speech immediately after he gave it was good. He was not stiff - although he did speak over ovations to stay within the time it would be covered. Kerry made the case for diplomacy and international cooperation. His speech said little about his war service, other than that he served and then returned home to protest the war. It was the visual image of having his crew there and having Cleland introduce him that gave the image of Kerry as a war hero. (If you want to quibble about ANY use of the Vietnam service, it would have been better had Clinton listed things Kerry did while Clinton was President rather than his excellent rhetoric "send me", that emphasized just that period, when we know Clinton did not act in the same way.)

It would have been odd for anyone with Senator Kerry's history not to take credit for what his service did show about him. His credentials against terrorism really came from his investigation of BCCI, not Vietnam. What his 2 prestigious medals showed was the intelligence and character of Kerry at 27. The reason the SBVT hit his well documented war service was because they could see that letting those images stand would lose the elections for the Republicans.

I know that seeing the hastily planned reunion of Kerry and Rassmann, the man he saved in Vietnam, seemed to me to be something out of a 1940s movie. A tall hero smiling saying something like anyone would have done that after Rassmann spoke of Kerry having saved him at his own peril. It was oddly as real as anything I've seen in a campaign while seeming like something that would have been in the movies before they became more cynical. (The fact that he was a registered Republican law enforcement guy made it clearer.)

I think that the campaign should have used video from that in one of their final commercials - taking back the narrative from the discredited liars. This would have added a lot to more heavily played ads on things like healthcare and the environment and terrorism, where his view really did become the most accepted view by 2006. (The message would not really be that Kerry was a war hero, but that Kerry, in tough straits, could be trusted to be there for the country.)

2) He did NOT back a plan that cuts entitlements - he backed the REID plan which has no such cuts.

3) The Reid plan does NOT cut SS.

4) I was going by threads you started in DU - the only thing I know about you. If you want, I will go back to search and link to them. That you worked for and contributed to all those campaigns is no different than what I did - and I assume what most people here did.

Again, Reid does NOT cut either Medicare or Social Security - and Reid has said that many many times. (Could you be conflating that with the rumors of various Obama plans?)

[Jakes Progress]

23. You are entitled to your opinions.

You are not entitled to pretend that you know my motives or my background.

1. My opinion. His performance at the convention was tinny and presaged a stiff and lackluster campaign. He deserved better handlers.

2. You are entitled to define cuts in any way that lets you live with yourself.

3. See item 2.

4. I question your research skills if that research indicated my motives and opinions as you stated them. I don't doubt that you put in the time to try to bone up but I think you are clouding your reading with your preconceived opinions. . Though it is a little spooky, I admire the attention. Feel free to study me and read my words of wisdom as much as you want. Good for you if you did hundreds of hours on eight campaigns. Your blind-faith enthusiasm is always welcome by the regulars when we need another sixty chairs set up or more boxes folded. But blind faith does not help between the elections. That takes critical observation and calling the men you have hired to do what you hired them to do. It does those men no service to be a yes man or an idolator. That way leads to errors in judgement that cost votes in the next election. I have no way of knowing but I would suspect that Kerry's may have been your first active campaign, and thus your first love. Hard to let that go. But a clinical examination of the candidate's performance is crucial to the candidate's future success. Kerry was a hero of mine beginning back with his stand on the Viet Nam war when he returned. He should have been a better candidate against a buffoon and idiot.

See Item 2.

[karynnj]

24. Could you please explain how the Reid plan includes cuts to

Medicare and Social security? That seems to be the difference in your opinion and mine. I think we both agree that what Kerry spoke in favor of is the Reid plan. (Where I see any wiggle room is the agreement to have the joint House/Senate group work on further debt issues, but even then Kerry is not saying that he will, before their work is done, support the results.) In other Kerry statements he has strongly argued cutting either.

I apologize for the comments on your past posts. I did a quick search and that is what I saw - and it matched what I associated with your user name. However, your comments on me are far less justified and do not match what I have actually done. I do not blindly support anyone - including Kerry, who I have at times disagreed with on issues, while always respecting that he is a genuinely good, thoughtful, hard working leader.

My view of this speech is that he is pushing the Republicans to reject their extremists and raise the debt limit.

As to the campaign, it is clear neither of our opinions will change. I do think that Kerry would have been better off if had depended on the advisers that were with him since the beginning - including his brother and ex-brother-in -law.

I think that campaigns are always viewed by their ultimate success or failure, especially as the media has a tendency to follow a narrative that leads to the results. Were there mistakes made in Kerry's campaign - sure - starting with giving in to the party and media and picking favorite Edwards as VP. In addition, I think that he should have kept his people completely in charge - even though it would have seemed like chutzpah to not pull in the Clinton people who had run national campaigns before. It is not that they weren't good or that they were evil, but because they, for the most part, were not people who really saw in Kerry what his Boston group did. It also hurt that people like Carville spent more time nitpicking how Kerry was not Clinton than looking to see what was good in Kerry's record.

It was the Boston people, led by Cam Kerry and David Thorne, who pushed Kerry to give his Iraq and terror speeches, while the Clinton people (and the Kennedy people) were telling him not to and to speak on economic issues. Both were giving the advice they believed in. Kerry's numbers numbers, which were falling, improved after he shifted to speaking on the war and on terrorism. They also argued for a more forceful rebuttal to the SBVT - as Kerry did to other attacks in all previous campaigns. That they were likely right in backed by later polling, which while showing people agreed more with Kerry and the Democrats on domestic issues, favored Bush on national security. Kerry was able to improve his numbers on that - but not enough. The problem was that this was the voting issue for a majority of people in 2004.

As to the convention speech, I actually thought it better than Obama's convention speech. The problem is with convention speeches. They are suppose to say who the candidate is, what the platform is and try to in addition show vision. For a convention acceptance speech, Kerry's was pretty good. I did not see Kerry as stiff, though I agree that many characteristics I think positive, including his thoughtfulness, his seriousness, and his real dignity might create that image - though he was far less stiff than Al Gore. I also wonder if part of the difference is that Kerry was not a baby boomer, but from the war baby generation. There is a huge difference in the "normal" demeanor between those two groups. Add to that that Kerry was raised by a diplomat in a home where good manners were assumed. When you add to that that any Democratic candidate had to be on guard 100% of the time, filtering each word before speaking, it is hard to see how anyone could have seemed more spontaneous.

[Jakes Progress]

25. Magic. Hold up numbers and pretend they are magic.

Here's a game. Find 2.7 trillion dollars without touching SS or Medicare or Medicaid. Is is likely that we are going to eliminate the military? Or stop paying government pensions? Once the 2.7 is pledged (without legal language declaring what is off the table) it will be sacrosanct. The cuts will be sacrosanct and our administration and our congress and both parties have already shown us the SS isn't.

So it doesn't say "We will cut Medicare". Please have a realistic view as to what will happen.

There is no need for any of this. Straight up vote. Presidential pledge to veto anything else. Republicans have to cave. Reid's plan is a near mirror of the plan that boehner first offered and then took back. Why are we fighting so hard to cut 2.7 trillion from the services and infrastructure and support side of our government and setting ourselves up to more economic woe just when the majority of the nations is suffering from the last cuts in government. The bush tax cuts alone are more than cause for all of this. See: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

So I can't applaud Kerry for bowing to the republicans by supporting the Reid plan that bows to the republicans. Especially when the net effect will be harm to the economy and pain for the people. Kerry is a smart man. He knows this to be true and should be saying so.

For his campaign. My point was simply my description of my impression at the convention. It was silly. The ins and outs of who he decided to listen to only goes to show that he lacked discernment and was not in touch with what real people see. For the people, it felt like he was trying to manage them. It came off as false, especially since his reputation, the thing that got him elected to begin with was not his war hero record but his opposition to the war.

Basically Kerry is a blue-blood type. He is rich and moves in rich circles. That does not preclude his being a good president or mean that there is something wrong with him. I just means that people know when he is playing the common guy shtick. People like bush jr, who is also rich and born to money in addition, can get away with it because bush is a boor and a clod. He lacks education, manners, and decorum. Kerry has to pretend he lacks those things. It would have been better to just be himself. I've got nothing against Kerry. He was the best we could do at the time and he is a good guy. My initial statement dealt with his backing a plan that caves to the republicans when we don't have to. My second statement dealt with what I saw as his unfortunate choice to play tin soldier at the moment when he needed to come off as a leader.

[politicasista]

19. Kick

:kick: