Posted on 07/19/2011 5:53:36 PM PDT by silentknight
The 234-190 vote sends the "cut, cap and balance" plan to the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it has virtually no chance of passing.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Mack Calls on his colleagues to oppose today’s vote to increase the nation’s debt ceiling.
Mack stated: President Obama has yet to present any specific plan to cut federal spending opting instead to fund ObamaCare at the expense of Social Security and pay to our soldiers. It is senseless to go on record as supporting an increase in the debt ceiling when the President has negotiated in poor faith. We need to continue to earn the trust of the American people, and the vote in the House on Tuesday is not the vehicle. We need to make clear to President Obama that enough is enough and insist he bring real spending reform, not rhetoric, to the table thus avoiding any need to increase the debt ceiling.”
The text of Mack’s letter to colleagues is below:
July 19, 2011
Dear Republican Colleague:
Americans are fed up with Washington schemes and double speak. Today, we will be voting on such a scheme to increase the United States statutory debt limit by $2.75 trillion. I believe voting for this increase, at this time, is a step in the wrong direction and puts our party on record as supporting a raise in the debt ceiling without any plan from President Obama. Like most Americans, I understand the deep frustrations with this administration’s failure to address excessive spending, balancing our federal budget and eliminating our national debt. I strongly believe we must not fall in line with a plan that raises the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to Cut, Cap and Balance our federal budget.
As evidenced by this past November’s election results, it is clear the American people no longer trust the President or his Senate followers to stop our government’s shameful spending habits. Instead, they have called on us to put our fiscal house in order. President Obama has yet to present any specific plan to cut federal spending. We need to continue to earn the trust of the American people; and the vote in the House today is not the vehicle. We need to make clear to President Obama, enough is enough. The House must pass Cut, Cap and Balance legislation without the reckless debt ceiling increase. President Obama must finally come to the table with a plan to fix the problem that he has helped create. The Republican Party needs to stand together as we address this problem faced by our nation. We must not let fear and distrust fuel this debate.
Let us remember what Barack Obama said on the Senate floor in 2006: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” Please stand with me in demanding a plan from President Obama and also calling on leadership to remove the debt ceiling increase from the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation.
Sincerely,
CONNIE MACK
Member of Congress
Statement on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against HR 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This bill only serves to sanction the status quo by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit.
When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite literally.
First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.
Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows-- including defense contractors and entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.
Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.
Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government. As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget. What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself.
We do need to cut spending, and by a significant amount. Going back to 2008 levels of spending is not enough. We need to cut back at least to where spending was a decade ago. A recent news article stated that we pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.
We need to cap spending, and then continue decreasing that cap so that the federal government grows smaller and smaller. Allowing government to spend up to a certain percentage of GDP is insufficient. It doesn't matter that the recent historical average of government outlays is 18 percent of GDP, because in recent history the government has way overstepped its constitutional mandates. All we need to know about spending caps is that they need to decrease year after year.
We need to balance the budget, but a balanced budget amendment by itself will not do the trick. A $4 trillion balanced budget is most certainly worse than a $2 trillion unbalanced budget. Again, we should focus on the total size of the budget more than outlays vs. revenues.
What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts relative to the President's proposed budget. It still maintains a $1 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the House.
By capping spending at a certain constant percentage of GDP, it allows for federal spending to continue to grow. Tying spending to GDP creates an incentive to manipulate the GDP figure, especially since the bill delegates the calculation of this figure to the Office of Management and Budget, an agency which is responsible to the President and not to Congress. In the worst case, it would even reward further inflation of the money supply, as increases in nominal GDP through pure inflation would allow for larger federal budgets.
Finally, this bill authorizes a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt limit. I have never voted for a debt ceiling increase and I never will. Increasing the debt ceiling is an endorsement of business as usual in Washington. It delays the inevitable, the day that one day will come when we cannot continue to run up enormous deficits and will be forced to pay our bills.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the aims of this bill's sponsors, I must vote against HR 2560. It is my hope, however, that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms.
It's what Ron Paul does.....rails against pork and then sticks tons of pork into Bills he KNOWS will pass, as he votes against it. That is just a sick joke!
Hussein and some MORON REPUBLICANS push tax increases with a fawning LameStream Media...will try to shove it down the House's throat, where it has virtually no chance of passing.
Michele was correct.
This bill would have a ton of ‘loopholes’ the dems could have driven a truck through. Guys, read the bill.
One problem with the Balanced Budget amendment: could make it “constitutional” for Congress to raise tax rates to World War II levels (94% in some cases).
We all know how this ends.
No, we don’t know how this ends. The House is holding strong. Some of the Reps that voted against CC&B will also vote, along with the others, against the Senate’s despicable deal. It won’t pass the House.
Are there enough RINOs in the House to pass the Senate plan?
If not, the Senate plan is "symbolic."
“That’s about what she did.VOTE PRESENT, only worse; she sided with the damned DEMS!”
She clearly stated she would do this, and why, months ago.
How are so many “conservatives” surprised by this? She did exactly what she stated she would do, vote against any bill that raised the debt ceiling while not repealing Obamacare.
It’s really pretty simple.
Was Jim DeMint’s pledge tied in any way to the debt ceiling? According to Ron Paul this vote sanctions an increase in the debt ceiling. If that’s the case I don’t think there is anything inconsistent with supporting DeMint’s pledge and voting against this legislation.
Which is the plan all along. Obama will invoke the 14th and just raise the debt limit citing an impass, while the bipartisan statists in the Senate will block any removal of the president via impeachment, thus letting the House leadership statists off the hook and preserve the spending status quo.
And thus the coup will be complete ....
Let’s just all get along.
She introduced legislation (with Steve King and Louie Gohmert) last week that would prioritize our spending - interest on the debt, our military, entitlements. That’s what we need to do. We take in enough tax revenues to cover these items. If there’s nothing left over then shut the government down until we cut spending for real.
It’s got as much, or more, chance of passing the Senate as any plan out there, that raises taxes in any way, has of passing the House.
So why are those others not “symbolic” while the most right wing plan is “symbolic.”
Oh, I forgot, its obvious, this plan is more conservative than all the others, and so must be considered “symbolic”, even by conservatives, who have absorbed the media’s talking points about it. . . .
What was I thinking, this one is “symbolic” while the other plans are “adult” and “bipartisan.” Never mind that the House will not vote for tax increases. Period.
He can “frame it” any way he wants. The House members know they have the majority of the people behind them. Obama wants the Republicans to surrender so the Dems can beat them to death with their cave in vote next election.
Obama said we need to raise the debit limit, so here it is. Let the Dems turn it down.
Well, they are on record. Assuming this does not advance, I’d rather they just pass a plain old debt limit increase and turn it into a campaign issues next year than vote for that Senate monstrosity.
You’re wasting your breath. Normally we’d be skeptical about legislation rushed through congress, why now are so many on board? This legislation will never become law; it’s just giving Republicans cover so they can vote to increase the debt ceiling.
An I thought I was pessimistic. :-)
There is no Senate plan or Obama plan. The Gang of 6 crap is not even a legislative vehicle.
I am beginning to hate the MSM more than the RATS.
If we care about spending cuts, everyone had better call their senators of both parties and raise Hell.
Polls Smools, forget polls this far out. Bachmann has as much chance as my dog. Hopefully she will get some more time in grade, maybe run against and beat franken, then go for the big job.
Right now her trip through the gauntlet just started, wait until they start dragging in the foster kids with some whiney-ass tale to tell.
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.