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.
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.
“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.