Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

John Sununu on Budget & Economy

Republican Senator; previously Representative (NH-1)


Raising taxes is last thing needed during financial meltdown

Shaheen said the financial meltdown is a “function of the Bush-Sununu policy.” The Democrat blamed Bush & Sununu for failing to provide oversight of Wall Street, letting financial institutions self-regulate, & for ignoring predatory lending practices.

“Where has John Sununu been on those issues? He’s been in Washington for 12 years--5 years on the Banking Committee,” she said. “He’s been missing in action when it came to cracking down on those practices that led us to the crisis that we’re in today.” In response, Sununu’s campaign maintained Shaheen is the “last person N.H. needs in an economic crisis” because her “first inclination” is to raise taxes. Shaheen seems to anticipate the tax-and-spend criticism. She said she balanced three budgets when she was governor and when revenues were lagging, she cut spending.

Sununu has been promoting three priorities: protecting taxpayers’ interests, implementing strong oversight of regulatory markets and promoting policies that encourage long-term growth.

Source: 2008 N.H. Senate Debate on Fosters.com Sep 20, 2008

Sought more financial regulation; keep taxpayers off hook

Sununu worked aggressively to carve out a pro-taxpayer position and cited his previous calls for stepped-up regulation of a key mortgage player.

Jeanne Shaheen countered that “the lack of oversight and the lack of accountability that George Bush and his allies like John Sununu in the Senate supported have really brought us to where we are today.” She pushed for tighter regulations and liquidity-disclosure requirements as well as a consolidated oversight system.

Sununu parried back aggressively, telling how he had long sought to beef up regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the ailing public-private mortgage finance companies seized by the government this month. “That’s an issue where I’ve led the effort not just in the past year, but going back five years,” Sununu said. He also said taxpayers should be kept off the hook for Wall Street’s failures.

Source: 2008 N.H. Senate debate reported in Concord Monitor Sep 19, 2008

Difficult to say that fundamentals of our economy are strong

The N.H. Democratic Party worked to tie Sununu to former senator Phil Gramm, the former McCain adviser & champion of free markets who Sununu once named as a role model. A party press release was titled: “Sununu Opposed Wall Street Oversight.”

But the parallels aren’t exact. For one, Sununu declined to agree with a McCain line that generated flack earlier this week, proclaiming that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.” Asked during the conference call, Sununu replied: “I think it’s very difficult to make a statement about the fundamentals,“ he said, citing the pace of change.

To make their case against Sununu, Democrats point to Sununu’s vote as a congressman for the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. That bill, co-sponsored by Gramm, removed New Deal-era restrictions on mergers between financial institutions. Democrats have circulated a news story saying the law ”helped pave the way for AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans.“

Source: 2008 N.H. Senate debate reported in Concord Monitor Sep 19, 2008

Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy.

Congressional Summary:
    Supplemental appropriations for:
  1. Infrastructure Investments: Transportation: DOT, FAA, AMTRAK, and FTA
  2. Clean Water (EPA)
  3. Flood Control and Water Resources (ACE)
  4. 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities (ED)
  5. Energy Development (DOE)
  6. Extension of Unemployment Compensation and Job Training
  7. Temporary Increase in Medicaid Matching Rate
  8. Temporary Increase in Food Assistance

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. DAVID OBEY (D, WI-7): Congress has tried to do a number of things that would alleviate the squeeze on the middle class. Meanwhile, this economy is sagging. Jobs, income, sales, and industrial production have all gone down. We have lost 600,000 jobs. We are trying to provide a major increase in investments to modernize our infrastructure and to provide well-paying construction jobs at the same time.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. JERRY LEWIS (R, CA-41): Just 2 days ago we were debating an $800 billion continuing resolution. Now in addition to being asked to pay for a bailout for Wall Street, taxpayers are being asked to swallow an additional $60 billion on a laundry list of items I saw for the first time just a few hours ago. The Democratic majority is describing this legislation as a "stimulus package" to help our national economy. But let's not fool ourselves. This is a political document pure and simple. If these priorities are so important, why hasn't this bill gone through the normal legislative process? We should have debated each of the items included in this package.

It doesn't take an economist to tell you that the economy needs our help. But what does this Congress do? It proposes to spend billions more without any offsets in spending. The failure to adhere to PAYGO means that this new spending will be financed through additional borrowing, which will prove a further drag on our struggling economy.

Reference: Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act; Bill S.3604&HR7110 ; vote number 2008-S206 on Sep 26, 2008

Voted YES 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.

Reference: Allard Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.491 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-090 on Mar 22, 2007

Voted YES 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

Other candidates on Budget & Economy: John Sununu on other issues:
NH Gubernatorial:
John Lynch
NH Senatorial:
Jeanne Shaheen
Judd Gregg

Newly elected in 2008 & seated in 2009:
AK:Begich (D)
CO:Udall (D)
ID:Risch (R)
MN:Franken (D)
NC:Hagan (D)
NE:Johanns (R)
NH:Shaheen (D)
NM:Udall (D)
OR:Merkley (D)
VA:Warner (D)

Newly appointed in 2009;
special election in 2010:

DE:Kaufman (D)
CO:Bennet (D)
IL:Burris (D)
NY:Gillibrand (D)

Announced retirement as of 2010:
DE:Kaufman (D)
FL:Martinez (R)
KS:Brownback (R)
MO:Bond (R)
OH:Voinovich (R)


Up for 6-year term in 2010:
(13 Democrats; 15 Republicans)
AK:Murkowski (R)
AL:Shelby (R)
AR:Lincoln (D)
AZ:McCain (R)
CA:Boxer (D)
CT:Dodd (D)
GA:Isakson (R)
HI:Inouye (D)
IA:Grassley (R)
ID:Crapo (R)
IN:Bayh (D)
KY:Bunning (R)
LA:Vitter (R)
MD:Mikulski (D)
NC:Burr (R)
ND:Dorgan (D)
NH:Gregg (R)
NV:Reid (D)
NY:Schumer (D)
OK:Coburn (R)
OR:Wyden (D)
PA:Specter (R)
SC:DeMint (R)
SD:Thune (R)
UT:Bennett (R)
VT:Leahy (D)
WA:Murray (D)
WI:Feingold (D)
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare

Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings

Page last updated: Nov 22, 2009