DeMint Threatens Filibuster on Debt Ceiling Vote

Throwing down the gauntlet, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint threatened Monday to block a vote in Congress on raising the U.S. debt ceiling unless he wins a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

The filibuster threat comes a day after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner suggested Republican leaders had offered private assurances to the White House that they ultimately would vote to raise the $14.3 trillion ceiling, regardless of whether a deal is reached on long-term spending cuts.

Publicly, Republicans say they will demand spending cuts as a condition for supporting a hike in the debt ceiling. They stood by that claim following Geithner's comments, and DeMint took their demands a step further.

Republican leaders had offered private assurances to the White House that they ultimately would vote to raise the $14.3 trillion ceiling, regardless of whether a deal is reached on long-term spending cuts.

Never trust politicians from either Party. They'll lie to us without a second thought. We don't mean a thing to them. Long as we vote for them, once they're in office, they don't need us anymore and will drop us like a red-hot rock had been put into their hands.

Always remember my tagline. Nothing but the truth.

I greatly admire Sen DeMint. But demanding a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment is, IMHO, a useless gesture. We've all been around long enough to know that, even if there is an amendment, there will be so many loopholes, going around it will be simple.

Still to be addressed is the fact it could take years for the states to ratify this.

Sen DeMint, sorry, I can't go along with this. Please do filibuster the debt ceiling. But don't attach your action to something so fanciful and out of reach.

Jim DeMint Ping!

Want on or off this ping list? Just FReepmail me.

Follow Sen. DeMint on Twitter.

From the article:

Geithner said repeatedly Sunday that lawmakers who want to take the country to the "brink" will bear the responsibility for the risk that creates.
He suggested that merely flirting with that edge would create a problem. But he said if Congress ultimately rejects an increase in the debt limit, it would trigger a crisis that makes that 2008 meltdown look tame. Geithner reiterated warnings that such a vote would force the government to halt benefits payments to seniors and veterans and would risk the government defaulting on its interest.

Oh, TurboTax is threatening us! I'll gladly give up my Social Security check in exchange for rational fiscal sanity for a change.

Truth be told, Timmy is blowing smoke. Checks won't stop. Entirely to politically risky.

The government is going to default on its debt obligations eventually, why not get it out of the way now? Or is this like the bank crisis where the banks were "too large to fail?" Is the US Government too large to fail? No, because there are global considerations.

I’m reminded that President Reagan wished for and wanted a line item veto made available to the presidency. Unfortunately you’re correct, things like this are simply not going to happen. A former employer who I personally disliked once said to me, “[Artemis] you’ve got to learn to pick your fights”. The simple fact of the matter is that congress is not going to cede massive amounts of it’s own power, we can elect tea-party candidates till we’re blue in the face, it’s just not going to happen.

I agree although I'm concerned about the principle not the loopholes.

Budgets can be balanced at 100% of the GDP. Balancing the budget simply treats the symptom. States have a proven capability to confiscate and spend everything their people make, at which point we are slaves. The government need to be tied to strict percentage of our labor.

I want a absolutely flat tax amendment. There must be no deductions, no credits, no exemptions, no withholding, no exceptions and the percentage must be enshrined within the amendment only to be altered by amendment. It’s the only way to ever get a balanced budget.

Sen DeMint, sorry, I can’t go along with this. Please do filibuster the debt ceiling. But don’t attach your action to something so fanciful and out of reach [as a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment].

I agree with you that DeMint SHOULD filibuster the debt ceiling increase — but to what purpose? To what end? There has to be a goal? He has to want something in order to keep the debt ceiling increase from happening, else to get some kind of concessions to ALLOW the increase to occur...?

Simply obstructing the debt ceiling increase for no good (or apparent reason) will only get him painted as public enemy #1 when things fell apart (or when the Press painted things in those terms, and you KNOW they would).

Perhaps a better idea is to FORCE ther Federal Government onto the ULTIMATE CRASH DIET — financially speaking. A “Government Shutdown” in REAL terms, simply means that the Government will ONLY be able to operate the programs and pay the personnel they can afford, based on the REVENUE THEY RECEIVE! In other words, to refuse to raise the Debt ceiling IS TO BALANCE THE BUDGET, to LAY OFF ALL NON-ESSENTIAL FEDERAL GOV’T PERSONNEL, CUT ALL WASTEFUL PROGRAMS, etc. :-D

The Feds usually take in about $150-$200 Billion a month in gross revenue. That’s somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.8-$2 TRILLION. This year, our budget was between $3.4-$3.6 TRILLION. Thus, the annual deficit of approx $1.4-$1.6 Trillion. Shut down the Federal Gov’t, REFUSE to raise the “debt ceiling,” and the Gov’t can BORROW NO MORE MONEY to send us FURTHER INTO DEBT. But we can still spend the nearly $2 TRILLION in gross revenues we get every year.

Don’t raise the debt ceiling = BALANCED BUDGET, CUT GOV’T SPENDING, CUT WASTE, etc.... There ya go :-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.