Posted on 07/20/2011 9:19:19 PM PDT by logician2u
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.
I’d like to know where he is factually incorrect.
Ron Paul has a point. The Tea Party is blamed for not compromising. Well, the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is a Kick-the-Can-Down-the-Road compromise. Since the Tea Party SEEMS to be supporting the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan, then they are compromising, with more political warfare to come to someday FINALLY fix our problematic financial problems at the national level.
However, I personally do not believe in the RINO / CINO / DINO Gang of Six plan to increase spending and raise taxes on small business owners.
Sooner or later, something has got to give, and it better be the Democrats, or I’m going to punish the GOP for surrending by not voting for them in 2012.
Your comments are well taken.
Unfortunately, the way politics is conducted these days, neither party understands punishment. They only understand winning and losing, and when they lose—as Republicans did in 2008 with McCain—they try to lick their wounds by blaming their loss on external forces, e.g., the sick economy, media bias, George Soros, you name it.
Republicans ran up the deficit all during the Bush years and were warned time and again that the country cannot keep on that track forever, that when tax revenues fall and/or interest rates rise there will be hell to pay. Democrats of course have been even more reckless in spending that which the government doesn’t have, and their solution, as always, is to raise taxes to pay the bills.
Neither party seems willing to bite the bullet and put the federal government on a reducing plan. They are each hoping to kick the can down the road a bit further before anything serious has to be done. But the road they’re on ends, as you know, in national bankruptcy. Better to face the music now while things are manageable than watch the republic crumble under a crushing debt load, wouldn’t you think?
He is right. Not one other congresscritter will listen to him though.
A $4 trillion balanced budget is most certainly worse than a $2 trillion unbalanced budget.
LIKE
With “Cut, Cap and Balance” the House again attempts to elicit some awareness that Federal spending constitutes an infectious disease. However, by exempting Social Security and Medicare from discretionary and current direct spending limits legislators do leave untouched $114 trillion of unfunded liabilities. Hopefully, by also enacting debt limits to about 20% of GDP, Congress will face this problem in future years. Presently, the Congressional Budget Office reports that the national debt will exceed GDP in ten years, which is where Greece is now.
“Tax increases” provide political obfuscation and they are not part of this bill. Tax provisions most often publically demonize the rich and corporations, while quietly providing “tax loopholes” to lower effective tax rates and garner their continued political support. Under accurate economic reasoning, lowering nominal tax rates and eliminating tax breaks redirects activity into useful economic ventures thereby creating jobs and increasing tax revenues.
Though prosperity with increased tax revenue can help, expense constraint provides the solution. The resolution provision requiring submission of a balanced budget amendment to the states reverses the trend of increasing federal power, which enables profligate spending.
The House provides hope and change, while Obama gives speeches and the Senate shirks its budget duties for now over 800 days. I think Ron Paul in many ways rightly objects to this legislation and I understand the symbolism of his vote. When the statists, liberals and the media are all outraged about this irresponsible legislation, someone should make the point that it does not really confront the problem.
HIS FIRST SENTENCE IS FALSE!!!!
“First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. “
They never said that the path to balance would not do that... what they DID say is the specific cuts in cut, cap balance do not do that.
Rep Ron Paul is a putz. Like the Democrats, he criticizes the only plan out there without putting forth his own. His statement is chock full of distortions and is very disappointing.
You cannot legislate as a lone wolf and get anything done. If he has a better idea - LETS SEE IT.
“Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government.”
FALSE! The bill puts a TOTAL cap on spending relative to GDP. This is the right way to go.
Get more facts here:
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/debtceiling.htm
1. Cut - We must make discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year.
2. Cap - We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached.
3. Balance - We must send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) that aligns spending with average revenues as described above.
Oh, yeah, I can see how that is different. /s
“Well, the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is a Kick-the-Can-Down-the-Road compromise.”
It doesnt kick any can down the road, it sets on a whole new path.... Getting Government down to 18% of GDP is sustainable. Obama’s 25% of GDP consumption is a path to bankruptcy.
You cannot get from here (25%) to there (18%) in an instant. It will take 7 years. But going in a new direction NOW, but cutting by several hundred billion this year, is a realistic solution that gets us down the right path NOW.
It took us years to get into this hole and it will take years to climb out.
“Neither party seems willing to bite the bullet and put the federal government on a reducing plan.”
It boggles my mind that you would say this ONE DAY after the House Republicans voted to cut spending by more than has been done ... um, ever ... and to get us on a path to reduce the Govt from 25% of GDP to ~18% of GDP over the next 8 years.
That’s the reducing plan!!!
Folks, it is 100% clear to me that y’all are just reacting to the liberal media and opponents’ distortions about cut, cap and balance. It is sad but true that too many Freepers shoot first and ask questions later.
I urge you to read up on what is really in the cut, cap and balance plan, learn and understand what it really does, and judge for yourself:
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/debtceiling.htm
It is different because the cuts are immediate cuts in FY2012, and they are specific cuts.
Beyond that are caps. the caps reflect the GOP budget roadmap, to take us from 25% of GDP budget to 18%.
Ron Paul is simply wrong and distorting. he KNOWS that the cut, cap and balance is based on Ryan roadmap budget and he knows what is in and not in those budget assumptions.
So when Ron Paul says: “First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare.” ... he KNOWS that is not true. Entitlement reform / changes are part of what will happen to make a balanced budget come about, and everyone knows this is necessary, that’s why the Democrats are shreiking over GOP plans while not offering plans of their own. The Democrat approach is to be as irresponsible as possible and demagogue the GOP plans, which are honest and sincere attempts to get us to balance.
Ron Paul’s approach is a snooty elitist purist turned-up-nose at a tough and practical solution, because it doesnt do the impossible. WELL ... PONDER THIS: Since Ron Paul has been in DC, the debt has tripled. So what GOOD has he actually done, while he criticizes other conservatives for their good efforts? What agencies did he get abolished in his decades there? What spending did he actually cut? What victories for conservatives did he actually win? so why listen to a guy who is just a do-nothing loser???
Take this crappy, dishonest statement:
“As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget.”
It’s funny, but I happen to agree 100% with this crappy dishonest statement. Milton Friedman is right! The funny thing is - the authors in the Republican Congress of the balance budget amendment listened to Friedman and did exactly that. So Ron Paul’s statement, is crappy and dishonest by implying falsely that the Cut, Cap and Balance did NOT do exactly what it DID do.
Again, RON PAUL WAS TOO LAZY TO EVEN READ THE AMENDMENT, AS IT DOES EXACTLY WHAT HE CLAIMS HE WANTS IT TO DO! Sorry for shouting, but it is perfectly obvious that Ron Paul is getting so addled he is failing to even read the bill!
ON TAXES - SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED:
” `Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.”
ON SPENDING - SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED:
“ `Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.”
source:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.56:
OK, so Ron Paul is point-blank wrong in his assertions about the balanced budget amendment, wrong in his characterizations of the cuts and the roadmap to balance.
has he even read the bill AT ALL?!?
Ron Paul is FURTHER dishonest in failing to state what HE WOULD DO to entitlements to address this. He’s a real jerk to pull this stunt and make this statement. It’s all well and good to make a general “spending should be lower” statement. WHAT IS HIS PLAN TO GET THERE? He has none!
He is as bad as Obama, sitting there doing nothing and criticizing everyone else.
Rep Ron Paul made a bad vote and worsened his credibility with a dishonest, inaccurate and ill-informed statement. Shame on him.
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=252753
What the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act Does
Based on CBO’s March baseline, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act saves $111 billion in 2012 and around $5.8 trillion over ten years.
Enforceable caps on spending will bring the size of government back below 20% of GDP to its post-WWII average.
The bill grants President Obama’s request for an increase in the debt limit, but only after Congress has cut up the credit cards by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Talk about crappy dishonest statements!
I asked a bunch of questions. There is nothing dishonest about questions. You are free to answer them. Please try!
You may not think it, but I actually like Rep Ron Paul and much of what he says. However, at a time when the Democrats are lying with abandon during a high-stakes standoff over the central issue of Government spending, it is beyond distressing to see Rep Paul make such dishonest statements about what’s in Cut, Cap and Balance. They only serve to help the Democrat big spenders (whether he knows it or not).
If I sounded ticked it’s because I am. I feel betrayed by him. WE are in the midst of the fight of our lives and he goes AWOL.
You think he has gone AWOL I think he stands on principal and tells the truth. You think it’s honest to say that one single congressman has failed because he couldn’t get one other congressman or senator to support the Constitutional limits he espouses and I don’t. There is no room there for us to discuss anything.
Well, we both know that he distorted and misrepresented what is in the Cut, Cap and Balance bill, just by comparing his statement with the bill text. He is flat-out wrong in what he said about the bill, as my citation of text proved.
Ron Paul is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts.
“You think it’s honest to say that one single congressman has failed because he couldn’t get one other congressman or senator to support the Constitutional limit”
234 members of Congress stood up for a Constitutional limit on spending and taxation, embedded in the Balanced Budget Amendment. They stood up for limited Government. There ARE other Congressmen doing the right thing, and they manage to do it without being impractical lone wolfs but instead working to move our conservative agenda forward. Their efforts will bear fruit. Ron Paul went AWOL on a critical vote. Disappointing.
I’m jumping in somewhat late, but I just wanted to say very simply that I completely agree with your comment and think you hit the nail on the head.
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.