Tammy Baldwin on raising the debt ceiling: For it before she was against it

On April 18th Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin signed a letter to Democratic leaders in the house requesting a vote on a "clean" bill to raise the debt ceiling.  Clean in this case meaning a bill that didn't include spending cuts as part of a deal to increase the debt ceiling.  The letter was written by Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT) and read in part:

We ask you to convene a caucus to discuss and establish a Democratic position in favor of a clean extension of the debt ceiling.

The debt ceiling vote is about one thing: affirming that America pays its bills. It does not authorize new taxpayer obligations; it affirms to the world our commitment to pay obligations already incurred.

To do otherwise, or to threaten to do so, or to leverage our duty to pay our bills to achieve a partisan advantage in budget disputes, jeopardizes the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

On Tuesday, Tammy Baldwin, and the other signers of Welch's letter, got their wish when the House considered an increase in the debt ceiling without any spending cuts as part of the bill.  Baldwin took the opportunity to vote against the debt ceiling increase.

To recap:  In late April Tammy Baldwin signed a letter calling for a clean bill raising the debt ceiling.  When she got that bill at the end of May, she voted against raising the debt ceiling.

No one would believe it was Baldwin's plan to oppose the increase all along, so what changed?  Obviously it was the decision by Senator Herb Kohl to not seek re-election to the Senate in 2012.  I don't actually know why Baldwin has changed her tune, but it doesn't take a cheesehead Machiavelli to surmise that she might not want to campaign statewide having just voted to raise the debt ceiling without any reductions in spending.

Democrats keep telling us that we've been reading too much into the results of 2010, but it appears Ms. Baldwin still believes the anti-spending sentiment of that season is alive and well.

Representative Ron Kind seems to have had the political sense to avoid signing the Welch letter in the first place.  Representative Gwen Moore voted for the debt ceiling increase.  Since taxing future generations to fund current entitlements seems to be the current Democratic party platform, Moore appears to be the only Wisconsin Democrat in line on this vote.

In his letter, the one that Baldwin signed, Welch argues that the debt ceiling vote should not be used for partisan advantage.  That appears to be just what Tammy Baldwin has done with her changing position on raising the debt ceiling.

Baldwin on Credit Cards

Representative Tammy Baldwin recently issued a press release entitled Cracking Down on Credit Card Companies and which included this item:

A woman from Madison wrote to say that the 2 percent she’d been required to pay each month on her credit card balance had suddenly been raised to 5 percent. “It has doubled our payment and it will be nearly impossible to keep up with my payments,” she said.

Without any additional details, this sort of fragmentary anecdote seems like a flimsy reason to crack down on anyone,credit card companies included, so I sent the following email to Baldwin's office:

Ms. Goodman,


This recent press release from Congresswoman Baldwin's office included this item:


A woman from Madison wrote to say that the 2 percent she’d been required to pay each monthon her credit card balance had suddenly been raised to 5 percent. “It has doubled our paymentand it will be nearly impossible to keep up with my payments,” she said.


While I am sympathetic to the plight of those who have been negatively impacted by circumstances beyond their control, I'm not sure this fits that category. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a person unable to make a payment of 5% of her outstanding credit card debt each month has too much credit card debt?


Perhaps you can share some additional details of this woman's story that could add needed context to this press release. Otherwise it just seems like Ms. Baldwin is fighting to protect people from the consequences of their own bad choices.


I do want to say that I do not live in Ms. Baldwin's district, but I am aware that she may have aspirations for statewide office, perhaps replacing Senator Kohl. Any information you could share on that matter would be greatly appreciated.


Jeremy R. Shown
De Pere, WI

No response yet, but I did see that Paul Ryan is considering a run for Senate in 2012 (H/T Fox Politics).

Baldwin & Pocan - misguided efforts on taxation of domestic partner benefits

Wisconsin's last budget included the extension of health benefits to the unmarried partners of state employees. The program is about to go into effect and some are finding that the new benefit carries with it higher costs since these benefits are treated as taxable income by the federal government.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports that US Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI2) is working to end the taxation of these benefits at the federal level:

Democrats in Congress like Baldwin are pushing to give unmarried couples like Merry and her partner similar treatment for their health benefits under federal tax law as married couples. The proposed change is part of the House version of the health reform bill but not the Senate version and is also in separate legislation in the House....

"This is a critical step toward ensuring health care for all," Baldwin said in a statement.

Preferential tax treatment of health benefits contributes to their continued high rate of inflation. The tax on Cadillac health plans in the Senate reform bill is an acknowledgment of this. An effort by Baldwin and others to expand the pool of benefits receiving tax exempt status would only worsen the problem. Perhpaps though, cost control is not central to this undertaking.

Obviously, supporters of Baldwin's efforts may claim that this change would simply equalize treatment of benefits. If equality is a main concern, I suggest that Baldwin turn her attention to an even more glaring discrepancy when it comes to taxation of health benefits here in Wisconsin: The tax treatment of contributions to health savings accounts.

In Wisconsin, there is no deduction allowed for employee contributions and employer contributions to the employee's HSA are taxable as income. So an employer's contribution to an insurance premium is not taxable. However, if an employer switches to a high deductible plan and, because of the lower premiums, decides to contribute cash directly to an employee's HSA that money is taxable. How's that for inequality in taxation of benefits?

In terms of the number of people affected, the HSA taxation is clearly a larger problem. The State Journal noted that, "1,000 state employees in all have signed the affidavits, suggesting they will seek some benefits." According to the insurance industry group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) January 2009 data shows that over 200,000 people were covered by high deductible/HSA plans here in Wisconsin.

Perhaps since this is a sate taxation issue, it's not entirely fair to criticize Baldwin. State Representative Mark Pocan (D-Madison) though, has no excuse for his support of the continued unequal treatment of HSA contributions. This issue is not a new one (here's a Biz Blog post on the issue from 2007) yet Pocan seems untroubled by this continuing discrepancy. Here he is in the State Journal article:

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, a key supporter of the benefits, said the change would end UW-Madison's status as the only Big Ten university not to offer the benefits to its employees.

"It's great that we're finally catching up to most larger businesses and all the other Big Ten universities," Pocan said.

As of 2008, only four other states and the District of Columbia didn't allow individuals to deduct HSA contributions. Wisconsin would be better served if Pocan and Baldwin spent less time and effort trying to keep up with the other Big 10 states and more time moving away from the small group of states that continue the unequal tax treatment of contributions to health savings accounts.

Representative Baldwin Votes to Fund Abortions

Wisconsin's Representative Tammy Baldwin is a member of the House Energy and Commerce committee, one of the committees considering health care legislation. In committee, Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, who is a Democrat, offered an amendment to prohibit federal funding of abortions as part of health care reform. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 27-31. Ms. Baldwin voted against the amendment and to allow for federal funding of abortions. Here is the amendment:
Given her history and the area that she represents, her vote should come as a surprise to no one.

More interesting to me is that a Democrat who represents the Michigan's Upper Peninsula (Stupak) is willing and able to attach his name to an amendment explicitly prohibiting federal funding of abortions. Those of us here in Northeastern Wisconsin like to pick on our friends from up north, but the fact of the matter is that in many ways the UP and NEW are very similar.

It would seem for our own Congressman Kagen the choice couldn't be more stark on this issue. Remember this difference is between Democrats, not Democrats and Republican.

It remains to be seen if Kagen will side with Baldwin and allow for taxpayer funded abortions or if he will have the courage to side with Stupak and the very many of his constituents who find such a prospect abhorrent.