I have to say that I'am extremely dissapointed with your recent actions. The raising of the debt limit, and the budget comission agreement, only speaks volumes as to what is truly wrong in Washington. Our founding fathers did not intend for our government to be bipartison. Too the contrary, they wished for Congress and the Senate to be at odds with one another. Prior to the 17th. Amendment states chose their Senators. The people chose their representatives. Now the people choose both. So for the better part of a century, our elected officials, you and your collegues, past and present,have chosen to punt. Simply to maintain your positions and status.
Make no mistake,sir, you chose to punt. Does a business, who faces financial, or fiscal difficulties, hire more, and spend more to solve their problems? I argue, that they most certainly do not. Yet the Debt Comission, I'm sure, will recieve a seperate budget, and new staff hires as well. Please do not insult the peoples intelligence, by saying that the comissions budget will be appropriated from available funds. Everytime Washington creates a comission, the Nation's cash register rings. Please remind me, where in the Constitution, it say we need to investigate the steroid use of professional athletes.
It saddens me to say that I will be looking to support another candidate, should you choose to run for re-election. You, Sir, a Marine Officer, whom has taken the Oath at least twice, should hang your head in shame. You chose not to defend the Republic.
Sincerely, SGT Robert Hughes (RET)
Don’t expect anything.
The congressional office staffers or interns will put a tick mark next to your position on the issue and send a form response.
That’s the way it works.
I’ll save you the trouble. Below is the response you’ll receive...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the debt ceiling agreement. As your Congressman, I value your input and appreciate you taking the time to express your opinion.
When I took office several months ago, I pledged to reduce our annual budget deficit and work with members of both parties to pay down our debt and balance our budget. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I helped craft a plan that would cut $6.2 trillion dollars, preserve Medicare and Medicaid for future generations and put us on a path to end deficit spending and pay down our debt. The House passed its budget. It has now been over 825 days since the Senate last authored, let alone passed a federal budget.
As the debt ceiling negotiations unfolded over the last few weeks, President Obama asked for two things: a blank check increase with no limits to curb out of control spending, plus tax increases. He got neither. On May 31, I voted against HR 1954, a so-called “clean bill” authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. That bill was defeated in a bi-partisan lopsided vote of 318-97.
I was adamant that any increase be accompanied by significant cuts that exceeded the debt ceiling increase, no tax increases, enforceable caps on future spending and a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. For those reasons, I was a proud co-sponsor of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011. This bill would have made substantial cuts in spending and would have reduced the deficit next year and thereafter, put in place enforceable spending caps that would have put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget, and required the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that would have included spending limitations and a supermajority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses in exchange for future increases in the debt ceiling. This bi-partisan bill passed the House on July 19 in a 234-190 vote. The Senate immediately tabled it.
On July 29, I voted for S. 627, the Budget Control Act of 2011, otherwise known as the Boehner Plan. This was a two-step approach to hold the President accountable. It included cuts that exceeded the debt hike, caps that would have controlled future spending, a Balanced Budget Amendment with real teeth, a path toward entitlement reform and savings, and no tax hikes. This legislation had the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Club for Growth. It passed the House by a vote of 218-210 and was again immediately tabled by the Senate.
Lastly came the debt ceiling agreement, S. 365, which provides for a total debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion-$2.4 trillion, sets ten-year caps on discretionary spending, creates a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, and requires both houses of Congress to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. While this bill is far from perfect, it is a step in the right direction.
Let me address the provisions within this legislation. The first phase of this bill cuts nearly $1 trillion from the operating budgets of government agencies while giving the President an immediate debt ceiling increase of $900 billion. The second phase forms a Joint Committee that is tasked with identifying $1.1 - $1.5 trillion in additional spending cuts and allows the President to ask for a second increase in the debt ceiling that is lower than the proposed cuts. Altogether, this bill will cut $2.1 - $2.4 trillion and includes no tax increases!
Many Granite Staters have asked “How do we hold future Congresses accountable for these cuts?” This legislation imposes statutory caps on spending that, if breached, would trigger across-the-board cuts that can only be reversed with a supermajority vote. For years, conservatives in Congress have been fighting for controls like these to drive down discretionary spending. The last time they were in place was the 1990’s. Conservatives tried to reinstate them during the George W. Bush Administration, but failed. Look at how drastically the culture has changed in Washington.
For the first time in a long while, discretionary spending will be lower next year than this year. This bill also puts forth 66% of the discretionary spending cuts called for in our budget, the House-approved “Path to Prosperity.”
Now on to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. As I said, this committee is in charge of finding an additional $1.1 - $1.5 trillion in additional cuts. Members must be appointed by August 16 and must meet by September 16. Recommendations must be made by October 14. This committee follows the same purview as a conference committee. A conference committee is established to resolve disagreements between the two chambers of Congress. House rules require that conference committee meetings should be open to the public, unless the House - in open session- votes that a meeting be closed to the public. I fully support this being an open process for the American people to see.
Once a bill has been passed by a conference committee, it goes directly to the floor of both chambers for debate and a vote and is not open to further amendments. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 limits debate on conference reports on budget resolutions and budget reconciliation bills in the Senate, so Senators cannot filibuster them.
If the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction’s legislation is not enacted, triggers would kick in on January 15th, 2012 to cut $1.2 trillion in spending across the board.
One piece of this legislation I strongly support is the requirement for both the House and Senate to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. They have until the end of this year to vote on this measure. It can play a major role in getting our fiscal house in order.
While this bill caps discretionary spending, it does not directly address the major drivers of our debt: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. I supported a blue-print for the preservation of Medicare and Medicaid in the House’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget, but no bill has been passed that mandates it. These programs make up nearly 60% of our annual spending and that number continues to rise. We must put politics aside and enact measures that not only put these programs on a path to solvency for future generations, but which also saves them - and our country- from bankruptcy. Until this problem is addressed, our debt and deficit will keep growing, and the problem will be kicked down the road for future generations to resolve. I will support measures from both sides of the aisle to get our fiscal house in order.
The debt ceiling agreement passed both the House and the Senate with large majorities and was signed into law by the President.
I hope this answers your questions and concerns about this bill and the process that produced it. The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times throughout history without batting an eyelash – I am proud to be part of a Congress that finally put a stop to that. This is only one tiny step in the right direction; however, we have changed the debate in Washington from “How much are we going to spend?” to “How much we are going to cut?” In the end, I decided it was best to vote in favor of these spending cuts today and continue to fight for more tomorrow. This is only the beginning, and it is my hope that you will stand with me as this fight continues.
I met with one of my CongressCritters a while back and asked him how I could send a letter to him that would get past his handlers. I was told: Letters should be sent via USPS (not e-mail), on a quality paper and matching envelope with a preprinted letterhead and envelope. This way the Critter doesn't know if the letter is from a disgruntled voter (scum of the earth) or a big donor (God's on). Critter will read because there is a chance the letter just may offer some not so unexpected riches.
I must say your letter was much more courteous and professional than my angry, fed up email to my Representative. Good on you.
Here is the response you can expect. I get them all the time and never a follow up. Guess Congress is very busy.
"Thank you for contacting my office via email. I hope to respond in more detail to you soon, but in the meantime, I wanted you to know that I have received your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to get in touch, and please write again soon!
If you need immediate assistance, please contact my office at 1-800-223-2220."
On July 19, I voted in favor of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This realistic approach bans a federal debt ceiling increase unless:
o Spending is immediately "cut" by $111 billion with respect to last year, in line with the House passed budget offered by Rep. Paul Ryan, which I supported in April;
o Future spending is "capped" at a decreasing level ultimately reaching 19.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2021, in line with historical government revenues; and
o All future budgets are "balanced" through the passage of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This legislation was passed by a vote of 234 to 190. Unfortunately, the Senate refused to consider the bill.
While I strongly supported this House plan, the current leadership in the Senate and the President's opposition to this bill make its passage impossible.
Please find my attached statement in favor of H.R. 2560.
This is not the end of our national discussion on our crippling debt, but an important first step to get it under control. I assure you I will continue to fight to reform our tax code to lower rates, cut spending, and fight for enforceable spending caps that will cure our nation of its spending addiction once and for all.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this critical subject.
Sincerely,
My RINO Congressman
I take comfort in knowing that this drivel was not composed exclusively for me.
And, BTW, I didn't contact him about "Cut, Cap, and Balance." I wrote to him asking why no one was talking about cutting the size of the bureaucracy with substantial layoffs.
ML/NJ
I agree with you. They do not understand and are unwilling to stand on principle and defend this country.
Most of them need to go esp Boehner. We need strong Tea Party candidates, not the McCain types.
We need to send new people every few years. This shouldn’t be a permanent job. This should be a part time job - less laws and less regulations. They seem to procrastinate until last minute to get anything substantial done. And then they do it poorly.
Part of the problem is that good qaulified experienced people will not run and we get the slick willies that get elected.