Called for banking oversight, but opposed by Bush & GOP
Dykstra said Johnson was part of a federal system that seemed to be "asleep at the wheel" as the nation's mortgage industry was racing toward a crash. Dykstra questioned whether Johnson's seat on the Senate Banking Committee had proven useful at all in
the months and years leading up to the financial meltdown. "In this whole banking crisis, Sen. Johnson sits on that committee. Either there was something he should have done or there was nothing he could do," Dykstra said. "Either way, that's not a stron
recommendation."
Johnson's campaign said the senator was busy working on the proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, with an agreement expected Monday night or today. Johnson said he had called for more oversight of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, the troubled government-supported mortgage entities hard hit by the subprime mortgage crisis. But that call for oversight was opposed by President Bush and Republican supporters in Congress, Johnson's campaign said.
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
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would increase the amount of the budget that would be used to reduce the national debt by $75 billion over 5 year. The debt reduction would be offset by reducing the tax cut in the budget framework from $150 billion
Johnson signed the Senate New Democrat Coalition letter to Pres.-Elect Bush:
Dear President-Elect Bush,
Members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition and the House New Democrat Coalition are interested in working with you to develop a responsible fiscal policy. We are proud of our records of fiscal discipline that have helped to produce the unprecedented surpluses for our country. We believe that continuing to use part of the surplus to pay down our national debt is a moral obligation that we owe to future generations. As New Democrats, we believe that a delicate balance can be struck between maintaining fiscal discipline, paying down our national debt, responding to the public’s understandable desire for common-sense tax relief and making important investments in our future. We are convinced that your stated goal of providing an excessive tax cut will lead to less debt reduction.
This in turn would lead to higher interest rates resulting in lower capital investment and productivity growth and ultimately a lower standard of living for all Americans. We are ready, however, to work with you on a smaller package of tax cuts designed specifically to stimulate our slowing economy in the short run while protecting Social Security and Medicare. In the longer term we are eager to work with you on a policy that encourages individual savings and investment, invests in college education tax credits, promotes research and development and bridges the technology gap that exists in our country today.
Source: Senate New Democrat Coalition letter to Pres.-Elect Bush 01-SNDC2 on Jan 11, 2001
Maintain & enforce existing spending caps in the future.
Johnson adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership issue stance:
What we offer today are not the precise spending decisions of a given year's budget; rather, we call upon the Congress and the nation to adopt the following guidelines for our fiscal policy over the next decade. This long-term blueprint is essential for maintaining both the immediate public-sector goal of balancing the budget and the private-sector goal of a healthy economy. This can be achieved through the following steps:
A commitment to maintaining and enforcing existing spending caps in the future, when such discipline becomes more difficult to achieve;
A careful and considerate re-definition of the federal role in society (what should be the legitimate and proper role of the federal government in the twenty-first century, and how do we prioritize competing demands?); and
An evaluation of implementing tax cuts based on their social fairness.
Source: Republican Main St. Partnership Issue Paper: Fiscal Policy 98-RMSP5 on Sep 9, 1998
