Jan 16, 2009 11:02am

Which Dems Voted Against Obama on TARP?

Wondering just which Democrats voted to NOT let President-elect Barack Obama have access to the remaining $350 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds?

And which Republicans voted to let him have at it?

From our Senate booth, ABC News’ Z. Byron Wolf tells us that if you look at the roll call, you can see that nine Democratic senators voted against giving Obama the money (for the anti-TARP resolution).

They were:

Perennial vice presidential bridesmaid Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bernie Sanders of Vermont (technically an Independent), Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Wolf and ABC News’ Vic Ratner note that of these nine, five are up for re-election in 2010: Bayh, Dorgan, Feingold, Lincoln, and Wyden.

Six Republicans voted to give Obama the money (a Nay vote on the resolution):

GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Dick Lugar of Indiana, Olympia Snowe of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio.

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., did not vote.

And in the interest of Senate comity, two senators who were present and would have voted against giving President-elect Obama the money — Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Jon Tester, D-Mont. — refrained from voting because two colleagues who would have voted to let Obama have the TARP funds, Sens. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, were unable to make the vote.

– jpt

UPDATE: ABC News’ Z. Byron Wolf adds: Sen. John McCain’s was the most obvious turnaround on the TARP funding vote in the Senate yesterday, by which senators agreed to write President-elect Obama a $350 billion blank check with his assurance via letters from economic adviser Larry Summers that the money would be spent with greater accountability than it has been under President Bush.

"No further TARP funds should be released until we are able to impose strict standards of accountability and ensure that the money is spent only as intended by Congress –- to purchase mortgage-backed securities and other troubled assets and provide help to homeowners who are on the brink of losing their most important investment and roofs over their heads," said McCain in a written statement.

McCain had suspended his presidential campaign in September to make a show of coming to Washington and helping create the $700 billion TARP bill that ultimately became law. He also said after the TARP vote on Thursday that he opposed the use of some of the first $350 billion in funds to bail out the American auto industry.

But McCain’s was not the only about face since the November election.

There are seven new Democratic senators in office after the November election. And an eighth, Al Franken in Minnesota, is ahead in the vote count pending a court battle.

All but two of those new Democrats ran against the original TARP legislation as an unjust bailout for Wall Street fat cats. Mark Warner of Virginia and Mark Begich of Alaska both said during the campaign they would support the bill. But the other six Democrats who defeated, unseated (or seem poised to unseat) Republicans, all said they’d oppose the bill.

Cousins Tom and Mark Udall from New Mexico and Colorado respectively voted against the TARP bill in the House, but for releasing the second half of funds yesterday.

“The circumstances have now changed," said Tom Udall in a statement explaining his vote. "President-elect Obama has committed to me that in using these funds he will carefully reinvest in our economy with increased accountability and oversight to help stabilize our middle class. He also committed to implementing the needed safeguards I have been advocating from the outset of this debate. "

But back in October, before his election to the Senate, Udall said he voted against the bailout because "it did too little for homeowners, too much for executives, and nothing to prevent Wall Street from repeating the mistakes that got us into this crisis … It will still put New Mexico and U.S. taxpayer on the hook for $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, the very people whose irresponsibility helped to undermine America’s economy and threaten the jobs and life savings of millions of American families…"

It was a similar story for his cousin Mark in Colorado.

Jeff Merkeley in Oregon ran an ad attacking then-Sen. Gordon Smith for supporting the TARP legislation, but on Thursday, after taking the seat from Smith, Merkeley voted to release the second half of the money he thought never should have been passed in the first place.

User Comments

The next president might just be among one of those brave patriots who voted against this bailout fiasco.

Posted by: We are screwed | January 16, 2009, 11:54 am 11:54 am

The vote gave the fox run of the hen house, unfortunately. The Treasury Department, still headed by Paulson, quickly graced Bank of America with some of those billions. The how many billions remains undisclosed as of yet. Thanks to the timing and the partisan stalling of Geithner, Mr. Paulson will be in further charge of the remaining allocations until someone else replaces him. Mr. Paulson will, no doubt, continue with his largesse to irresponsible financial institutions.

Posted by: kat | January 16, 2009, 11:56 am 11:56 am

LOL….
It is indeed comical that Larry Summers, one of the lead players in the history of this economic crisis is now going to be “responsible” for the traceability with his assurance via letters to the Congress.
Get ready America, here goes another 350 billion into the void!

Posted by: Mike_C | January 16, 2009, 11:59 am 11:59 am

Kat,
Geithner should be out! Besides his tax cheating, he needs to answer for the lack of accountablilty at AIG for their piece of the bailout pie!
Also put some blame on Pelosi/Reid for not getting oversight on that first 350 Billion. Oversight is the responsibility of Congress!

Posted by: Mike_C | January 16, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm

jpt writes:
“in the interest of Senate comity, two senators who were present and would have voted against giving President-elect Obama the money … refrained from voting because two colleagues who would have voted to let Obama have the TARP funds … were unable to make the vote.”
“Senate comity”? Nice phrase-making, but good Lord! Depriving two states of representation in bilking the Treasury because two Senators from OTHER states were no-shows?
After the coronation, Congress might as well go home, let homeless people squat in the Capitol.

Posted by: Belle Starr | January 16, 2009, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm

ridiculous

Posted by: young conservative | January 16, 2009, 12:13 pm 12:13 pm

Interesting cross-section of ideology in those Senators.
Perhaps is is about reelection.

Posted by: Ryan C | January 16, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm

Mike-C, Pelosi and Reid were the ones that tacked some safeguards on Paulson’s clause which prevented any administrative oversight. That’s why there was an investigation, which so far has concluded that the most of the 350 billion is unaccountable. It’s Paulson who has yet to answer for AIG or for any accountability on the bailout. He’ll obviously dole out more funds, but still not be accessible for what happens to them. He appears to still be ensconced in a dictatorship over our tax dollars.

Posted by: kat | January 16, 2009, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm

I am glad for Russ Feingold! The bailout has little oversight, lots of money that is going to banks and bankers who in turn are simply buying each other out…and not using the funds to lend. Witness the Company in chciago whose brave wokrers staged a sit-down strike to force Bank of America to loan the company enough money to pay the workers’ legal pay.

Posted by: Theron | January 16, 2009, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm

If Kennedy’s dead-end incapacity is preventing Senate representation for states BESIDES Massachusetts, why the heck doesn’t he just go home? They might be able to keep him marginally ticking for YEARS.
There’s a certain dog-in-the-manger flavor to it all. Kennedy was a great Senator, sometimes, but jeez …

Posted by: Belle Starr | January 16, 2009, 1:53 pm 1:53 pm

Where’s my 10 million $ bonus?

Posted by: R Cross | January 16, 2009, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm

jpt writes:
“And in the interest of Senate comity,”
How tempting to substitute “comedy” for “comity”. The Brock-schlock is getting deep, when this kind of “comity” stands in the way of actual representation.
Comic opera becomes black-comic opera. How long before these jokers start wearing costumes and singing show-tunes on CSPAN?

Posted by: Belle Starr | January 16, 2009, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm

What is with these Republicans voting for the TARP again!? Haven’t they learned that their constituents DETEST big spending?! Thick as molasses (or maybe I should strike the M-O-L from that). The will surely lose in 2010.

Posted by: smc | January 16, 2009, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm

“They will surely lose in 2010.”
Incumbents SELDOM “lose” elections. As for “constituents”, their actual constituents are the corporations … who are FINE with having a few trillion dollars in public funds to play around with.

Posted by: Belle Starr | January 16, 2009, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm

Sure why not, they will let Bush hand it around with no questions asked, but you put a man in office who is calling for restrictions and answers and then they decide to vote against it. Washington politicians have no brains, now I know why we are in the position we are in today.

Posted by: becky (the real one) | January 16, 2009, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm

“Washington politicians have no brains, now I know why we are in the position we are in today.”
It certainly would be interesting to know how many of “our” reps have been daily booze-drinkers since prep-school days, and what the cumulative institutional effect of that has been.

Posted by: Belle Starr | January 16, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm

Where are my billions? I need them and I want them NOW! Pelosi do you read me?
What is the matter with these idiots in Congress (most Dems and some Reps – Dems light). These people have never worked a day in their life, are used to getting everything free or at a reduced rate. I can only say – remember what happened in the French Revolution – off with their heads! Congress needs to come back down to earth and work for the hard-working taxpayers of this country.

Posted by: Heaven help US | January 16, 2009, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm

This is just scary. Is the country so caught up in Inauguration Fever that no one is paying attention?
Or, is it more that the average American feels helpless to control anything in Congress anymore?
Is this about doing what’s best or about rushing through a “victory” for Obama, so he has something in a win column as soon as he’s sworn in?

Posted by: interested08 | January 17, 2009, 2:25 am 2:25 am

Republican senators will never learn. I guess like Chris Matthews, they too got a tingly feeling running down there leg during the top secret meeting with Obama a few days ago. Spending our money this way is reckless and I am tired of this being forced on all of us. I do not go to work every day and pay my taxes (unlike some Obama Treasury nominees I won’t mention) just to have it taken away and given to a bank so it can buy other banks and bad paper? Where is the outrage? Where is the media on this? They report part of the story, but they sure aren’t going out on the street to ask people like you and I what we think about this nonsense. Come on ABC News, lets see what people really think about Bailout Mania 2008-2009.

Posted by: Jessica | January 17, 2009, 3:11 am 3:11 am

It appears that so many of you has forgotten that the Republicans initially asked for the 7 billions, without any attachments from Wall Street and Banks. The congress fought to have some type of measurements on this money. It was a Republican president and his appointees from the treasury who took your billions. Better catch Bush before he get away, again.

Posted by: sara wilson | January 17, 2009, 11:28 am 11:28 am

If their is no accounting for the 1st $350 billion, why do you think it even exists/existed?
It’s all make-believe, no?
What? No paper? doesn’t that mean it don’t exist?
We are all fools if we believe these crooks. If we accept a debt on money that legally doesn’t exist.

Posted by: Rene | January 17, 2009, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm

WHO CARES ABOUT MONEY – WE HAVE OBAMA !
HOPE, CHANGE, LOVE, RAINBOWS, AND LUCKY CHARMS FOR ALL. Change has come…join the magic carpet ride !!!

Posted by: jimbo | January 20, 2009, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm

The sec of Treasury forgets to pay taxes? Daschle forgets to pay $128,000 in taxes? It is no wonder these Dems don’t mind tax increases, they don’t pay them anyway. Obama is proving to be the biggest mistake ever made in an election.

Posted by: Brian | January 31, 2009, 9:33 am 9:33 am

Congress and the Senate are out of control with spending. Obama can say or do what he wants but he has no power over money. Look what the congress is trying to do give money to any and every one that they think will vote for them and the working guys gets screwed again. Lets stop giving money to those who don’t work. Give the housing and food stamps and maybe 50 bucks a week and that is it. No tax checks when they don’t pay taxes. Keep the money from being spent on drugs and liquor. But the likes of Reid and the P. want it that way keep them drunk high and depending on us for money and we will get re-elected every time.

Posted by: Robert | January 31, 2009, 7:28 pm 7:28 pm

Robert wrote: …”Lets stop giving money to those who don’t work. Give the housing and food stamps and maybe 50 bucks a week and that is it. No tax checks when they don’t pay taxes. Keep the money from being spent on drugs and liquor. But the likes of Reid and the P. want it that way keep them drunk high and depending on us for money and we will get re-elected every time.”
The ones that stay “drunk and high” have nothing to do with Reid’s or P.’s re-election – the vast majority do not bother to vote, or even pay attention to politics.

Posted by: angie | March 2, 2010, 11:27 pm 11:27 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.