Posted in observance of the suspension of any Debt Ceiling
# # #
The Freedom Caucus can now re-brand as the RINO Caucus. Politico reports:
Jim Jordan and other key
conservative firebrands have caused a fair share of House Speaker Kevin
McCarthy‘s biggest headaches. But instead of leading the rebellion this time,
they helped him quash it.
As the House Freedom Caucus was
preparing to discuss whether to officially oppose the speaker’s bipartisan debt
deal — a move that would potentially galvanize conservative opposition — Jordan
(R-Ohio) phoned several fellow members with a request, according to a person
familiar with the calls. The former chair of the group urged them to hold back,
effectively giving conservatives who wanted to vote with McCarthy license to do
so.
Jordan, a longtime McCarthy
antagonist turned ally, almost got his wish. The group took no official
position until hours before the vote, when most members had already made up
their minds.
The beloved House Freedom Caucus
co-founder — who gravitated toward McCarthy after the now-speaker tapped him
for a senior spot on the Oversight Committee — helped out in other ways. The
Ohio lawmaker spoke up in favor of the deal in private calls and meetings,
including taking the mic at a closed-door huddle on Tuesday night, just hours
after many of his fellow conservatives had spent the day trashing the deal.
This report concludes with this:
If most Republicans get on board,
it means threats against his speakership won’t gain real traction. And with
two-thirds of the GOP conference backing the deal Wednesday, it seemed to be
working.
“We didn’t do it by taking the easy
route,” McCarthy said in a celebratory post-vote press conference. “It wasn’t
an easy fight, I had people on both sides upset.”
But he added: “I think we did
pretty damn good for the American people.”
No debt ceiling. No
serious budget process. J D Rucker
considers this bill an existential threat.
His take is here.
# # #
JD Rucker at The Discern Report saw it coming:
The debt ceiling battle may be
over. We’ll know for sure Wednesday when the vote is scheduled, but it seems
Joe Biden and Kevin McCarthy may have come together. Considering the most basic
and obvious elimination of fruitless spending — 87,000 IRS agents — was
NOT addressed, this seems like a huge loss for patriots.
McCarthy will herald spending cuts,
but they won’t be in the same ballpark as the absolute overhaul that is
necessary to give this nation any hope for the future. Instead, we will
continue down our path to unavoidable Modern Monetary Theory crushing the
country into oblivion. . . .
McCarthy caved. Another
win for the Uniparty.
Read the rest of the report here.
# # #
Betsy McCaughey often updates her
readers on healthcare matters. Yesterday, at
Townhall, she analyzed the consequences
of Congress members who want to keep raising the debt ceiling. Her premise:
"If America wants to spend
like Europe, it must tax like Europe -- and that means large payroll and
value-added taxes on the middle class," says [Manhattan Institute
economist Brian] Riedl.
Ms. McCaughey concludes:
Over the last 25 years, Congress
has hammered out eight laws to control spending. All eight were tied to debt
ceiling hikes.
At stake in this current debt
ceiling struggle is preserving what sets the United States apart from Europe.
In the United States, working
people get to keep most of what they earn and decide how to spend it.
Don't let the Washington pols treat
your paycheck as if it belongs to them.
The full column is here. This might be one issue that might get better results in any upcoming vote -- with a call to your House representative; click here.
# # #
WASHINGTON—October 18, 201 – This is Obama’s Nirvana!
The new budget deal passed by the government this week breaks an enormous promise to the public, destroys long-time safeguards over spending, and grants the President almost total control over the full faith and credit of the United States.
It breaches the trillion-dollar promises to control spending made only two years ago.
Why should anybody trust today’s promises when those 2011 promises had such a short shelf life? The issues and threats were the same as they were this year, namely prospects of a government shutdown and of defaulting on the federal debt.
Agreement came sooner that time, as President Obama and Congress raised the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. They also promised to match the increase dollar-for-dollar by reducing spending by $2.1 trillion.
This week’s budget deal becomes the means to dissolve that spending restraint. President Obama and Democrats are openly pushing and succeeding they say in ending the limits from the 2011 agreement. And too few Republicans are resisting.
Those spending cuts, known as the sequester, were already gimmicky.
In the first place, while the $2.1 trillion was borrowed and spent right away, the spending reductions were to be spread out over 10 years. That’s not a genuine one-to-one; it’s one-to-ten.
In the second place, the sequester was not spending cuts as everyday people define them. It’s actually spending increases, but at a lower rate than was planned. It’s like only driving 20 mph over the speed limit rather than 30 mph over.
There’s even a third place: The sequester was back-loaded. It presumed that elected officials of the future would be more disciplined at controlling spending than today’s politicians. The first year of the 10-year sequester plan—last year—didn’t produce 10% of the savings, namely $210-billion. Instead, it produced only $85-billion in “savings,” which is only 4%.
Even though the sequester concept originated with his White House, President Obama now routinely denounces it, as do most Democrats. Republicans are mixed in their approach to the sequester, although House leaders have mostly come to embrace it as the only thing that helps hold spending in check even though it doesn’t reduce spending.
Once they cashed in and spent that $2.1 trillion increase in debt, President Obama and a host of Senators and Congressmen developed amnesia. They got what they wanted so now they don’t even remember promising any fiscal restraint. They spent the money and want no part of the discipline.
We can expect a repeat performance once they spend this year’s increase in the debt limit. All promises of future restraint will evaporate. That’s why it’s so dangerous to give Obama expanded authority to borrow money without needing approval from Congress. Checks and balance require that Congress must have the ability to negotiate and extract concessions as a condition to that approval. But they won’t have it under the new plan.
National debt has risen more than $6 trillion so far during Barack Obama’s Presidency, even before he gets unchecked borrowing power.
This 2013 agreement allows unlimited borrowing for the next few months. That will include money for the Treasury Department to pay back the money it’s taken out of federal retirement funds since May—probably over $250 billion—because it couldn’t go out and borrow it.
Obama gets his wish of not having to negotiate conditions in order to borrow. The historic safeguard requires Congress to approve a credit limit in advance. The new protocol lets a President borrow unless Congress passes legislation to disapprove. Simply by vetoing that legislation, a President can borrow whatever he wants unless two-thirds of Congress then votes to stop him.
These details are only now coming to light. The details of the 2011 agreement have been known, but amazingly there’s been little public talk about whether it would be thrown overboard. That’s because a great many politicians want to escape any tough decisions of holding the line on spending.
Only in Washington, DC can a $2 trillion promise be treated as something that’s easy to ignore.
There were 269 House members who voted for that $2.1 trillion package in 2011: 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats. In the Senate it received 74 votes: 45 Democrats and 28 Republicans. Most of them are still in Congress. And of course President Obama is still around.
We should ask them, press them and demand of them that they keep their commitments. They already got the money and they already spent the $2.1 trillion. Why should we trust them with any more borrowed money? Especially since it’s borrowed from our children!
Political promises evaporate quickly. It’s borrow and spend now—or tax and spend now—and we promise to make spending cuts starting tomorrow. That tomorrow never comes, but the tomorrow when the bills arrive will get here eventually.
President Obama is on track to propose a modest increase in federal civilian workers’ pay as part of his 2013 budget due in early February, an administration official confirmed Friday.
The 0.5 percent pay increase comes after two years during which civilian pay was frozen to save billions. The 2013 pay increase is far less than the current rate of inflation, which stood at 3.4 percent in November compared to a year earlier.
Republicans have proposed keeping the civilian pay freeze in place for at least one more year.
By keeping the increase modest, the White House expects to free up $2 billion for other uses in 2013, and $28 billion over 10 years compared to the budget baseline.
“Federal employees are working with severely limited resources,” NTEU President Colleen Kelley wrote in a letter to the 20 lawmakers on the conference committee earlier this week. “They have faced government shutdowns four times this year, yet they have worked diligently to deliver services to the public. To ask them to bear such a disproportionate additional burden is unfair and unacceptable.”First, the ONLY REASON we faced four government shutdowns the past year is because President Obama and the Democrats failed to do their job and never put forth or passed a budget.
"The good news is that the pay freeze is ending, but I am disappointed at the size of the proposed 2013 increase,” she said.
But, “a permanent pay freeze is not an acceptable policy,” one of the senior administration officials said Friday, according to a Washington Post report.
The U.S. had its AAA credit rating downgraded for the first time by Standard & Poor's on concern spending cuts agreed on by lawmakers to raise the nation's borrowing limit won't be enough to reduce record deficits.So it looks like, once again (Stimulus, TARP, Bailouts, etc...), the financial and fiscal wisdom of President Obama has failed to live up to what he said it would be, or should we say for what some people "hoped".
S&P dropped the ranking one level to AA+, after warning on July 14 that it would reduce the rating in the absence of a "credible" plan to lower deficits even if the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit was lifted. The U.S. was awarded the top credit ranking by New York-based S&P in 1941. It kept the outlook at "negative."
"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said in a statement today.
Demand for Treasuries has surged even with the specter of a downgrade as investors saw few alternatives to the traditional refuge during times of risk as concern increased global growth is slowing and Europe's sovereign debt crisis is spreading. The action could still hurt the U.S. economy over time by increasing the cost of mortgages, auto loans and other types of lending tied to the interest rates paid on Treasuries. JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated that a downgrade would raise the nation's borrowing costs by $100 billion a year.
"It's a reflection of the fact that we haven't done enough to get our fiscal house in the order," Anthony Valeri, market strategist in San Diego at LPL Financial, which oversees $340 billion, said in an interview before the downgrade. "Sovereign credit quality is going to remain under pressure for years to come." »Read Full Article
I have troubling news. I’m very careful about criticizing my party’s leaders, but what is happening in Washington right now cannot be ignored.You can read the whole letter by clicking here.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has abandoned the Cut-Cap-Balance Act and is now pushing a new plan that is nearly identical to the one proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
The Boehner-Reid plan gives the President an immediate increase in the debt limit and only promises to cut spending in the future. It violates all three principles of the Cut-Cap-Balance Pledge because it does not substantially cut current spending, it does not truly cap future spending, and it does not require the passage of a strong Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the debt limit.
In short, I oppose the Boehner-Reid plan because it won’t balance the budget and stop the debt that is destroying our country.
The Boehner-Reid Plan
You will hear many claims about this plan over the next few days as it is pushed through the House and Senate. Some of these claims will be true, but many will be false. Here are the facts. The Boehner-Reid plan:
- Provides two increases in the debt limit – $900 billion and $1.6 trillion — totaling $2.5 trillion. It gives the President an immediate $900 billion increase given that Congress does not vote to disapprove it. It gives the President another $1.6 trillion increase next year if a bill written by a new Super Committee passes both houses and becomes law.
- Reduces spending by only $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. This amount won’t even come close to balancing the budget, as the debt is expected to grow by as much as $10 trillion over the next decade. The plan also reduces spending by only $6 billion in 2012. Considering that our government currently spends $10 billion a day, $6 billion is far too little to cut over the first year of the plan.
- Calls for a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment but does not require its passage. Without passage of a strong Balanced Budget Amendment, Congress will never break its addiction to spending.
- Makes it virtually impossible to stop the debt limit from going up. The debt ceiling increases can only be stopped if Congress passes a resolution of disapproval and then votes to override the President’s veto with two-thirds support in the House and Senate.
Why It Should Be Rejected
- Creates a new, 12-member Super Committee to write another “grand bargain” to reduce the deficit by at least $1.6 trillion. It does not, however, prohibit the Super Committee from writing a bill to raise taxes and destroy jobs. The bill can then be fast-tracked through the House and Senate with no amendments.
After reviewing the details of Boehner-Reid plan, I cannot support it.
- It won’t balance the budget and stop the debt. Even if the cuts called for in the plan were real, the debt will still increase by $7 trillion over the next ten years.
- It won’t protect our AAA bond rating. According to financial reports, this plan will not reduce long-term spending by enough to prevent a downgrade. If we lose our AAA rating, it will create higher interest rates and cause our debt to grow even faster.
- It will likely result in higher taxes that will destroy even more jobs. The unemployment rate is over 9 percent. We cannot afford to lose more jobs when so many Americans are struggling to find work.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says negotiators are "very close" to nailing down an agreement that would avert a default of the nation's debt obligations.
McConnell tells CNN's "State of the Union" that lawmakers are looking at a $3 trillion package that would raise the debt ceiling in two stages through the elections next year.
The bipartisan “Gang of Six” proposal on the deficit continues to draw attention from rank-and-file senators, even as House leaders come out in opposition to any plan that includes new revenues as part of a deal.Please contact Senator Portman and remind him he was elected to stop the spending addiction in D.C., not make deals that allow even MORE spending! Tell him we do not need another Senator George Voinovich!
“It's a step in the right direction,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who was budget director under President George W. Bush, told us on ABC’s “Top Line” today. “It's the one effort out there where you've got Republicans and Democrats coming together. And I think it could actually mesh well with what I think is the ultimate solution here with regard to the debt limit increase.”
Portman said he disagrees with those in his party who say it’s not critical to increase the debt ceiling.
Welcome to the Senate.
It ain’t easy, is it?
Here’s the thing you need to know. Right now, you are probably telling yourself you need to be reasonable. You are probably telling yourself you need to cut a deal.
I’m willing to bet you are telling yourself you should do something short term and in six more months or whenever, after everything has calmed back down, revisit the issue.
Senators, you are fooling yourselves. And I bet you know it.
We have had, in the past 30 years, 17 deficit commissions. After almost each one, taxes have gone up, but the spending cuts have never happened.
Republicans before you have been quite reasonable. So reasonable in fact that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy.
And each time, they’ve gotten to the breaking point and decided, “let’s just do something to get us some breathing room and revisit it again in a few months.”
If you don’t fight, if you decide to take deal, make a compromise, or “let cooler heads prevail” at some point in the future, you’ll be no better than those who got us to this point. You will become them.
You went to Washington because Washington is broken. Pay very careful attention to the choices you are about to make. Because I suspect many of you are about to make the same choices the people before you who broke the system made. Don’t let fear, uncertainty, and market upset govern your decision making processes.
The only way out of this mess is to think different — to actually care enough to fight.
America’s debt ceiling was quietly raised 10 times over the past 10 years. Only now has it become a national debate. The elephant in this room is not the GOP. It is the millions of Tea Party activists who have shifted the national debate to government overspending — a debate that was long overdue.
But a debate is just a debate. Words are just words. We saw how worthless words can be earlier this year.
The GOP said all the right words leading up to the 2010 midterm elections, but once the new leadership was sworn in this year, their promised spending cuts dropped from $100 billion to $31 billion and eventually to nothing.
Now it is time to back up those words with backbone.
We believe in Ronald Reagan’s adage, “Trust but verify” — but with a new twist: “You go first.”
If the president wants the debt ceiling raised and the GOP wants spending cuts, you must say: “You go first. Spending cuts first, then we’ll talk.”
The same goes for the GOP leadership. Show the millions of Tea Party Patriots you are serious about putting an end to overspending, then We the People will consider trusting you.
It has been more than six months since this Congress was sworn in. That’s half a year that could have been used to stop this government overspending. Half a year that could have been spent living within our means. Politicians from both sides have found the time to debate this issue around the clock, across all media and even on the golf course. But they have still not found a single moment to find a wasteful government program to cut?
What did our leaders find time to do these past six months?
The American people know there’s waste in the government. They see it every day from their local post office to the observance of Nancy Pelosi’s taxpayer funded jet. Just recently, we found out the National Institutes of Health is spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on studies of toenails.
The Washington Post reported in February that Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) , the one in charge of the funds, has a community college student commons center, a fire training center, a water park, a boulevard, a drive and a parkway named after him in his district in gratitude for $40 million he had brought to the area. Were those all legitimate government spending or a way to keep his 30-year career in Congress secured?
The president and his administration can’t look through their departments and find anywhere to cut. Congress can’t put a moratorium on nonessential programs until a review of the entire budget is completed? Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) seems to be the only one capable of coming up with real cuts.
Again, what have these “leaders” been doing?
Our president found time to characterize his opponents as wanting to put “a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners.” This is a strange thing to hear in this new era of civility. Then Obama threatened to push Grandma off a cliff unless he got a deal to raise the debt ceiling so he can overspend even more, saying, “I cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] checks go out on Aug. 3.”
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) found time to commend the president for making the case to raise the debt ceiling, saying on July 11: “I would agree with the president that the national debt limit must be raised. I’m glad he made the case for it today.”
It is clear they are not serious about cutting wasteful spending or they would have found a way to do it. When a family is on the brink of bankruptcy and can’t make ends meet, what do they do? They cut back on their spending. It’s very simple.
No, we’re not sophisticated Washington power players. We’re just Tea Party Patriots. But it seems to us that, in a debate over raising the debt ceiling, perhaps the best opening position is not to commend the person across the table for wanting to raise it.
Try our “you go first” method. If the president wants the debt ceiling raised, tell him “you go first” on cuts. If the GOP wants the Tea Party Patriots to believe they have backbone, show it to us first.
If you can’t find your backbone, you can borrow some of ours. We the People have plenty.
Meckler and Martin are the co-founders and national coordinators of America’s largest Tea Party group, the Tea Party Patriots.
Yesterday Barack Obama told CBS that there simply may not be enough money in the coffers next month to pay Social Security payments.