Tea Party representatives claim debt deal responsible for downgrade because it did not cut enough (Part 2, Tom Cotton weighs in)

The Tea Party members in the Republican Party voted against the debt deal and have even claimed that the debt deal did not cut enough out of the budget and that is why the USA got a downgrade in the  credit rating. Below I have the comments on the downgrade from two of those representatives.

First, I want to call attention to one of our local candidates. Yesterday Tom Cotton who is a Republican who is running for the congressional seat being vacated by Democrat Mike Ross commented on the debt deal. Here is a portion of the article concerning that by Jason Tolbert:

Tom Cotton, who is currently the only announced candidate for the Fourth Congressional District open seat for either party, appeared on KARN’s Dave Elswick show yesterday afternoon where he answered questions from listeners for over an hour

Responding to one question, he said he would not have voted for the final legislation voted on last week regarding the compromise to extend the debt ceiling while making around $2.3 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years.  All four Arkansas Representatives and both Senators voted for the final bill.

Cotton explained that he would have supported the Cut, Cap, and Balance proposal passed by House Republicans before being defeated in the Senate, but that he had serious concerns over the details of the final debt compromise and could not have vote for it.  He pointed to the many closed-door, back-room meetings that went into the bill and said he would want to see a more transparent process.  In addition, he said the structure of the spending cut triggers have the potential to cause too many cuts to defense spending that could weaken our military.

Cotton said if he is elected, he would want to see not only spending cuts, but structural changes to the way the federal budgets are implemented.

Congressman Landry Statement on S&P Downgrade

Millard Mulé

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03) issued the following statement after Standard & Poor’s (S&P) lowered the United States’ long-term credit rating:

“It should come as no surprise, that after Washington has recklessly spent, borrowed, and bailed out everything under the sun with taxpayer money, America’s credit rating has been downgraded. For the first time in 70 years, the United States is not the world leader in financial investment. And with the S&P slashing our credit rating from AAA to AA+, our markets are sure to be tested and our neighbors could face interest rate changes to their mortgages, credit cards, and car loans.

As I said when I voted against it and the S&P acknowledged when they made the downgrade, the Washington debt deal initiated by the Senate and signed into law by the President did not do enough to end the government’s addiction to spending. It is evident that Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats were wrong and should have followed the House’s lead with Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Making deals to continue kicking the can down the road is not the answer. We need a plan that cuts spending, simplifies and decreases the tax rates, reforms entitlement programs, and sends a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states; anything less will not solve the real budgetary problems Washington faces nor return our AAA rating.”

August 5, 2011

Congressman Huelskamp: S&P Downgrade Embarrassing, But Certainly Preventable

Says Lawmakers Ignored S&P’s Wake-Up Call

(DODGE CITY, KAN.) – Congressman Tim Huelskamp issued the following statement when Standard & Poor’s announced Friday evening that it had decided to downgrade the United States’ AAA credit rating:

In April, I said that the threat of downgrade should be a ‘wake-up call’, but unfortunately not everyone agreed,” Congressman Huelskamp said. “Now, the decision of the majority of Washington to hit the snooze button on Standard & Poor’s alarm will have major ramifications not just for Washington, but for the entire economy.”

“S&P gave Washington plenty of warning that lawmakers needed to deal with the debt, yet the warning went unheeded. Big spenders in Washington decided to interpret the markets’ warnings as an instruction to borrow more when instead the markets wanted Washington to stop the reckless borrowing and unchecked accumulation of debt.”

“This is embarrassing, but it certainly was preventable. Washington has known all along that markets needed a strong solution to deal with the country’s long-term spending and borrowing habits. The ‘Cut, Cap, Balance’ Act was just such a plan with appropriate short-term cuts and caps on future spending the rating agencies said were needed. Yet, Washington produced a politically-expedient plan that was an insufficient answer to the real problem, a plan that tackled the need to borrow, but ignored the even greater need to reduce spending.”

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: