Steve Chabot's Votes to Raise the Debt Ceiling

My alleged congressman, Steve Chabot explained why he voted for raising the debt ceiling and creating a “Super Congress”.  Chabot points out that the “drop-dead date” was set by Timothy Geithner.  (So you believed him?)  Chabot said that Obama did not get anything close to what he had wanted.  Oh, really?  He claims that this bill was “based upon the principles of Cut, Cap, and Balance”.  Then he explains the differences.  (I would point out that even Cut, Cap, and Balance is unacceptable because it merely tinkers with budget, and does not contain any guaranteed, substantial cuts enough to really balance the budget.)  Under the bill that passed, the Balanced Budget Amendment vote will occur after the debt ceiling is increased.  So there is no guarantee at all that the flawed Balanced Budget Amendment will be voted on, much less passed.  Like the Amendment itself, it’s just another promise which can be broken.  (So this is exactly what Obama would want.)   He explains that the cuts would be over the next 10 years and that there would no guarantee that they would actually happen.  Again, this is another promise which can be broken.  I doubt that these "cuts" are anything but cuts in proposed increases in spending, not actually cutting current levels of spending.  (So this is exactly what Obama would want.)  He talks about the unconstitutional “Super Congress” as if it was a good thing, but it is yet another step toward concentration of power into the hands of a few.  Again, this is NOT a good thing, Mr. Chabot. (It's exactly what Obama would want.)  “I came to the conclusion that it was probably the best we could get,” he said.  You may have gotten something out this bill, but “we” didn’t!  No real cuts, no balanced budget, only more promises and more centralization of power in Washington.

Ron Paul Votes Against Cut, Cap, and Balance

Here is his speech:

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.

McConnell, Boehner: Don’t be chickens, but do Cut, Cap and Balance!

Hat tip goes to AmericasBestChoice.blogspot.com, where I first saw this YouTube video.

Tuesday, July 19 House will vote to cut, cap, and balance

The following is part of an email I received from U.S. Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA-1) regarding the most important piece legislation that will be discussed, voted on, and enacted this year!

http://www.ForAmerica.org/

Next week, the House will take up debate on the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. This bill will provide immediate spending cuts, implement a plan similar to mine which would limit spending as a percentage of the economy, and enact a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Then, and only then, it would allow for an increase in the debt limit.


I plan to support this bill because it addresses the need to change the trajectory of spending. We are in this debt crisis not because the debt ceiling is too low, but because spending is too high. Since President Obama took office, the national debt has increased by $3.7 trillion – more than the country acquired from 1776 until 1992!


The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act is a constitutional, permanent solution to put an end to the spending-driven debt crisis and save our children and grandchildren from a bankrupt future. To read more about the plan, click here.

Cut, Cap, & BALANCE – Getting the Complete Picture

Hat tip goes to my Representative U.S. Representative Jim Jordan, (R-OH-4), and his conservative Republican Study Group (RSG) which produced the video embedded below. The video deals with how to handle the massive deficit, debt and Democrat desire to again raise an already dangerously high and going-through-the-roof debt ceiling.

As RSC Chairman Jim Jordan and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor wrote in their USA Today op-ed today:  

…Always a concern, the national debt has grown into a malignant cancer on our economy. Attacking this cancer at its root means cutting spending. If we do not, the U.S. will face a job-killing debt crisis within just a few years.

Promises, Promises - Near-term spending cuts are necessary to alter the course, but they will not be enough without long-term changes. Likewise, promises of cuts 10 years from now mean little without a way to enforce them. The only way to truly guarantee delivery from future politicians is if the Constitution demands it. That's why the House will vote next Wednesday on a balanced budget amendment that would require supermajorities in both chambers to run a deficit, raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes and spend more than 18% of GDP…

DON’T Raise the Debt Ceiling, Cut & Cap Spending!

www.CutCapBalancePledge.com

No Debt Ceiling Hike: CutCapBalancePledge.com is the only way!



Obama, in practice, has changed the motto on the dollar