Democratic Jr Senator (NY); Secretary of State-Designee
Government action to tackle recession, not tax cuts
Q: Why would you be better fit than the Republican nominee to turn this economy around as we seem to be headed for a downturn, if not a recession?
A: Well, it is the case that the economy is becoming a greater and greater concern because, obviously,
it’s not working for the vast majority of Americans. I’ve been out there since March talking about this mortgage crisis and urging much more aggressive action to stem the foreclosures that are beginning to cascade around the country. But at some point
you’ve got to have government action to really tackle these problems. The stimulus package is a start, but it’s not nearly enough. What we have to do is have an economic policy that once again creates jobs with rising incomes. Obviously, I disagree with
the Republicans about the tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year. I think we should let those expire and use that money on universal health care and other needs that people have that are really directly related to the state of the economy.
The economy is not working for middle class families
Tonight President Bush claimed that the state of our union is strong. But for too many American families, the true “state of their lives” is one of economic anxiety and uncertainty.
After seven years of stagnant wages, declining incomes and increasing
inequality, our families are working harder and harder and still falling behind. President Bush had one final chance tonight to acknowledge what the American people have known for years: that the economy is not working for middle class families.
Unfortunately, what he offered was more of the same--a frustrating commitment to the same failed policies that helped turn record surpluses into large deficits, and push a thriving 21st century economy to the brink of recession.
We need a President who understands the urgent economic challenges our families face and who will work as hard for middle-class families as they work for America. I intend to be that President for the American people.
We need immediate relief for home heating & housing crisis
While I was heartened to hear the President acknowledge the need for immediate actions to jumpstart our economy, it will take more than tax rebates to fix our economic crisis and rebuild our economy for the future.
We need immediate relief for people who are losing their jobs and facing skyrocketing home heating costs. And we need a comprehensive solution to the housing crisis. Every housing proposal the President made tonight,
I made several months--and hundreds of thousands of foreclosure notices--ago. For example, I have proposed to enable the Federal Housing Administration to function as an alternative to the subprime market; and I have proposed to empower state housing
finance agencies to help families refinance unworkable mortgages. But more is needed. So I have also called on the mortgage industry to observe a 90-day foreclosure moratorium on subprime mortgages and a 5-year freeze in rates on subprime loans.
Clinton and Obama battled over their votes on bankruptcy bills and an amendment to cap interest charged on credit. Clinton said, “There was a particular amendment that I think is very telling: to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than
30% interest. I voted for limiting to 30% what credit card companies could charge. Senator Obama did not.” Obama responded, “I thought 30% potentially was too high of a ceiling.”
Obama did vote against--and Clinton voted for--an amendment that would
have placed a 30% cap on the interest rate that could be charged on any extension of credit. The amendment failed by a vote of 74 to 24 in 2005. When the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes,
D-MD, the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt. As for whether the 30% cap was too high, that’s certainly a matter of opinion.
FactCheck: Consistently against making bankruptcy stricter
Clinton also said she had opposed the overall bankruptcy bill, which made it more difficult for consumers to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy; Obama opposed it, too. She didn’t vote on the final bill, which passed by a
74-25 vote, because it was the day of her husband’s heart surgery.
Obama mischaracterized Clinton’s comments on her vote for an earlier, 2001 bankruptcy bill. Obama said, “Sen. Clinton said she voted for [the
2001 bill] but hoped that it wouldn’t pass. Now, I don’t understand that approach to legislation.“
That’s not exactly what Clinton said. When asked if she regretted voting for the 2001 bill, Clinton answered, ”Sure I do.
It never became law, as you know. It got tied up. It was a bill that had some things I agreed with and other things I didn’t agree with. I was happy it never became law. I opposed the 2005 bill as well.
2005 bankruptcy bill was by big credit cards & lenders
OBAMA: When we talked a while back, we talked about the bankruptcy bill, which had been pushed by the banks and the financial institutions, that said, basically, it will be harder for folks who have been lured into these teaser rates and then see their
credit cards go up to 30%, that they would have a tougher time getting out of bankruptcy. In the last debate, Clinton said she voted for it but hoped that it wouldn’t pass. Now, I don’t understand that approach to legislation.
CLINTON: I regretted
voting for the bankruptcy bill and I was happy that it didn’t get into law. By 2005, there was another run at a bankruptcy reform, motivated by the credit card companies and the other big lenders. I opposed that bill. There was a particular amendment
that is very telling. It was an amendment to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than 30% interest. It was one of the biggest lobbyist victories on that very bad bill that the bankruptcy bill represented.
No evidence as to how Obama would pay for new programs
CLINTON: Obama has said that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote. They were bad ideas for America. They were ideas like privatizing Social Security, like moving back from a
balanced budget and a surplus to deficit and debt. Obama have a lot of money that you want to put into foreign aid, a very worthy program. There is no evidence as to how you would pay for it. It’s important because elections are about the future.
OBAMA
I did not compliment Republican ideas. That is not true. What I said was is that Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda,
an agenda that I objected to. While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, Clinton was a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart. What I said had nothing to do with their policies.
Foreclosure moratorium mitigates agony; doesn’t prolong it
Q: Does your plan prolong the subprime agony?
A: No. I think it helps to mitigate the agony. What I hear as I go in and out of people’s homes and talk to so many who have already lost their homes, they’re in foreclosure, they see these interest rates
that are about to go up and they know they can’t pay them, is that we take action now. I’ve been calling for action since last March. When I first started calling for it, a lot of the same economists who now say don’t do anything about it said, it won’t
be that bad. The mortgage crisis is not only destroying home ownership, it is having a ripple effect across the world. So my moratorium for 90 days is a work-out. It’s not a bailout. I want people to be able to see whether they can stay in their homes
paying a rate that is affordable for them. The interest rate freeze is merited. If you’re a homeowner who has been at the bottom of this incredible scheme that was established, you’re left holding the bag and you don’t have the house anymore.
90-day moratorium on foreclosures; freeze interest rates
A lot of our big financial institutions made these bets on these subprime mortgages. They helped to create this meltdown that is happening, that is costing millions of people who live in homes that are being foreclosed on or could be in the very near
future because the interest rates are going up. And what they did was to take all these subprime mortgages and conventional mortgages, bundle them up and sell them overseas to big investors. So we’re getting the worst of both worlds.
This administration can’t figure out what we should do. I have a plan: a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days, freezing interest rates for five years, which I think we should do immediately. What we now see is our financial institutions
having to go hat in hand to borrow money from foreign government funds. I’m very concerned about it. I’d like to see us move much more aggressively both to deal with the immediate problem with the mortgages and to deal with these foreign funds.
Call for a moratorium on housing foreclosures for 90 days
We need urgently to have bankruptcy reform in order to get the kind of options available for homeowners. In addition to what I want to do, which is the moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days to see what we can do to work them out, and freezing interest
rates for five years, and making the mortgage industry more transparent so we actually know what they’re doing. Countrywide gets bought and the CEO, who was one of the architects of this whole subprime mess, is sent off with $110 million in severance pay
The priorities and the values are absolutely wrong. So what we’ve got to do is move urgently. In addition to what I’ve proposed, we’ve got to reform the bankruptcy law right now going forward so that people who are caught in these subprime and now
increasingly conventional loans that they can’t pay because of the way the interest rates are going up, and many of the fraudulent and predatory practices that got people into them in the first place, will have the option of getting relieved of this debt
A: This stimulus shouldn’t be paid for. The whole point of stimulus is going to require an injection of federal funding. And I would start with the mortgage crisis. I want to have a moratorium on
foreclosures for 90 days so we can try to work them out. I want to freeze interest rates for five years, and I want to have a $30 billion package that will go in and try to stabilize the housing market and stabilize communities that are going to be
affected by that.
Q: But many people could’ve had a fixed mortgage at a higher rate, but they opted for a cheaper one. Should they not bear some responsibility?
A: The bankers, the mortgage lenders, the brokers, all bear a lot of the responsibility,
because many of the practices that were followed were just downright predatory and fraudulent. There is no doubt about that. A lot of people got into subprime loans who frankly could’ve been in a conventional fixed-rate loan.
Look back to 1990s to see how I’d be fiscally responsible
Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Well, fiscal responsibility is a very high priority for me. We don’t have to go back very far in our history, in fact just to the
1990s, to see what happens when we do have a fiscally responsible budget that does use rules of discipline to make sure that we’re not cutting taxes or spending more than we can afford. I will institute those very same approaches.
You can’t do it in a year. It’ll take time. But the economy will grow again when we start acting fiscally responsible.
And then we can save money in the government by cutting out private contractors, closing loopholes, getting the health care system to be more efficient. We’ll do all of this at the same time, but the results will take awhile for us to actually see.
Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks
Q: We’ve seen all this turmoil in the markets caused by the credit crunch and the crisis in the mortgage markets. The Federal Reserve lowered the discount rate for banks. Should they lower rates for everyone else, yes or no?
A:
I’m glad they did what they did. But it can’t be just left to a bail-out for the banks. We’ve got to figure out how we’re going to figure out people facing foreclosures. And I have recommendations on that, that do not lend themselves to an easy yes or no
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week”
Aug 19, 2007
Balanced budget replaced with rising costs & falling wages
Families are struggling with rising costs and falling wages. They’re working harder than ever in the last six years. Productivity has gone up 18%, but the average family income has fallen $1,300. We have now more than
45 million people living without health care, and millions more who are underinsured. We have 12 million children living in poverty. We have more people going bankrupt last year than graduating from college.
Yet these are all invisible to the president and his administration.
And we know that for those who worry about passing on this huge debt that has been blown up in the last six years--because remember,
six years ago we had a balanced budget and a surplus--well, if you’re a grandparent worried about passing that debt on to your grandchildren, you’re invisible.
Last six years were challenging; let’s try a new direction
Q: How would you work to reinvigorate this region’s economy?
CLINTON: Six years ago, we didn’t yet have a recession. We didn’t have the 9/11 attack. We didn’t have high deficits. We didn’t have the Bush policies. Thankfully we escaped a plague
of locusts, but we’ve had some challenges in the last 6 years. So I’m not discouraged I’m just changing direction, trying to work in different ways to help people right here at home create these opportunities for themselves.
SPENCER: Well, if we did
have a plague of locusts, you know who’s fault it would be, right? George Bush. He’s responsible for everything. When are you responsible, Sen. Clinton? When are you responsible, after 6 years?
You pledged 200,000 jobs. If you’re not responsible, then you’re ineffective. You’re ineffective as a United States Senator from New York.
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005
While opposing tax cuts, Clinton has supported hundreds of bills boosting federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. During her first two years in office,
Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored 169 bills increasing spending by a total of $124 billion, while failing to sponsor or co-sponsor a single bill to reduce spending.
In 2003 and 2004 Clinton grew even more generous with the taxpayers’ dollars.
She sponsored or co-sponsored 211 bills to increase spending and just three bills to reduce it, yielding a total net cost of $378 billion. This made Clinton the second most “expensive” senator during that time.
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium
Q: Should taxpayer money should be used to build such a stadium in Manhattan?
CLINTON: I don’t think that’s a good use of that space or of taxpayer dollars. There is work we need to do to upgrade the infrastructure. That’s
why I support the Second Avenue subway. That’s why I support the East Side connector, a rail link to La Guardia and to JFK. I will go to the Senate to continue the work on Penn Station and others that Senator Moynihan has started.
LAZIO: I think it’s important to get the Jets and Giants back. This is not just a plan for a stadium; it’s also a plan for expansion of convention space. I don’t think this should be funded with public money entirely. But I believe
that this is an important initiative to build jobs for New York.
Q: How will you pay for all the new programs you’ve proposed?
A: We have a surplus after 7 years of good economic leadership in our country. We should pay down the national debt, secure Social Security, add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and
provide affordable tax cuts. I have been very careful to cost out my plan because I believe in a balanced budget. That’s why I reject the large tax cut that independent experts have said is more than a trillion dollars that my opponent has proposed.
Source: Clinton-Lazio debate, Buffalo NY
Sep 13, 2000
Stimulate upstate economy by more local decision-making
Q: Will you support measures that would be unpopular with state unions if they helped reduce the tax burden on upstate New York?
CLINTON: I’m a very strong supporter of these changes that are needed to stimulate the upstate economy. And many of those
changes can only take place at the state and local level. Because what I have laid forth in my economic plan for upstate is a way to use tax credits to stimulate business, to expand the high tech industry that is coming to Buffalo.
LAZIO: I do believe
that the upstate economy has turned the corner. It also needs new partnerships, alliances, something I’ve been doing down in Long Island. Creating technology incubators, building on our assets in the upstate economy. Making sure that we build good
partnerships and a first-class educational system. One of the things you can do is to begin to address the issue of taxation. We need to make sure that people don’t pay taxes on top of income that they’ve already paid taxes on.
Supports Niagara casino, but prefers job creation strategy
Q: Americans spend millions at the local casino in Niagara Falls, Canada. Why not have a casino built on this side of the border to help our economy?
LAZIO: I don’t believe that it’s a good idea for us to be building casinos. I would allow the state
of New York to make these decisions. But in the end, I’m not a big fan of gambling. Economic development in the area is an important issue, but I would not focus on the quick hit, the cheap hit in gambling. I’d focus on the kind of jobs where our
children can afford to stay here, raise a family, buy their own home.
CLINTON: I know how hard the people in Niagara are working to try to turn their economy around, and if they believe that a casino would help attract more tourists back, I would
support that. I leave that to their judgment. But there has to be more of a strategy about the upstate economy --tax credits to help jobs be created, creating the regional skills, alliances, commitment to work force development, etc.
Protect next generation by paying off national debt
We’ll never accomplish what we need to do for our children if we burden them with a debt they didn’t create. Franklin Roosevelt said that Americans of his generation had a rendezvous with destiny. Well, I think our generation has a rendezvous with
responsibility. It’s time to protect the next generation by using our budget surplus to pay down the national debt, save Social Security, modernize Medicare with a prescription drug benefit, & provide targeted tax cuts to the families who need them most.
Source: Address to the Democratic National Convention
Aug 14, 2000
We have outlived the usefulness of Bretton Woods
We have lived with the benefits, for 50 years now, of the agreements that were made at the end of WWII, coming out of Bretton Woods to create new financial architectures. Today, we have outlived the usefulness of that particular set of arrangements.
And we now have to face up to creating a new architecture that will help us tackle runaway global capitalism’s worst effects; ensure social safety nets for the most vulnerable; address the debt burden that is crushing many of our poorest nations.
Source: Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France
Jun 17, 1999
The economy creates consumers but cannot create citizens
Some think that the market can do anything if left alone. Others undermine the benefits that free enterprise brings. We have to create a balance. How do we enjoy the benefits without suffering from the excesses? The economy can create the jobs...
and wealth; it can create consumers and the producers of goods. But the economy cannot create citizens. Government can only respond to citizens, not create them. Only civil society can do that. And it is time for us to renew and expand civil society.
Source: Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France
Jun 17, 1999
Invest in people instead of “smokestack chasing”
Remember what we thought of as economic development. “Smokestack chasing” is what it was called. If we could convince someone to get out of old dying Detroit and move to Arkansas, we were going to be moving right along. We have seen how many of those
industries that we got to move from Detroit have moved to Bangladesh. We have seen that economic development cannot depend on what kind of jobs we bring as much as on what we do to invest in our people to generate more of our own economic opportunities.
Source: Unique Voice, p. 43-44
Feb 3, 1997
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.
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
Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages.
Clinton 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:
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.
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.
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.
Clinton co-sponsored reforming mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy
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.
Source: Foreclosure Prevention Act (S.2636) 2008-S2636 on Feb 13, 2008
Click here for definitions & background information on Budget & Economy.
