The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 21)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

Westmoreland Opposes Debt Ceiling Increase

Feel Free To Share This Page Slashdot Del.icio.us Google Digg Reddit Newsvine Furl Yahoo Facebook

Washington, Aug 1 –

WASHINGTON, D.C. – After months of debate, tonight the House of Representatives passed S.365, the Budget Control Act of 2011, to raise the debt ceiling and enact some spending reforms.  Specifically, it would reduce deficits by $917 billion over ten years by capping spending levels and in return raise the debt ceiling $900 billion.  In addition, it requires a vote on a balanced budget amendment in both the House and the Senate after October 2, 2011 but before the end of the year.  It then establishes a commission tasked with finding an additional $1.2 to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts by November 23, 2011.  A second debt ceiling increase of $1.5 trillion would be permitted at the beginning of next year if the balanced budget amendment is sent to the states for ratification, or if the commission proposal includes cuts equal to or greater than $1.5 trillion and those cuts are passed into law.  If neither happens, a $1.2 trillion debt limit increase would be attached to across the board spending cuts that would equal the difference between $1.2 trillion and the cuts enacted by the commission’s proposal.  Congressman Westmoreland did not support the legislation.

“When these negotiations began in January, I made a promise that I would not vote for any legislation that didn’t include significant spending cuts and absolutely no tax increases.  Unfortunately, the final plan did not include significant enough cuts and left open the possibility for tax increases through this bipartisan commission.  In addition, it does not require a balanced budget amendment be sent to the states for ratification.  Without that constitutional restraint placed on this Congress and future Congresses, we can never guarantee real spending reforms will happen.

“House Republicans also made a promise to the American people that we would bring back an open process here in Congress.  Up until now, we have stuck with that promise.  We’ve posted legislation on the internet and given the American people and Members of Congress 72 hours to review it.  We’ve brought back open rules on appropriations bills, allowing Republican and Democrat members alike to offer amendments.  But now, after this deal was crafted behind closed doors with only a few members of leadership at the table, we were given less than 12 hours to read and review this extremely important legislation.  More time is needed to make an informed decision about legislation of this size and scope.  Unfortunately, once again, Congress has waited until the last minute to act, pushing us up against this artificial August 2nd deadline and forcing a decision on a bill it seems no one actually likes.

“I and other Republicans in the House stuck by our leadership in the hopes we could keep Cut, Cap and Balance alive and negotiate a deal we could support.  And while I know they worked hard to get the best deal possible, at the end of the day, it’s just not a deal I can support.  I commend their efforts though.  If you will recall, up until a few months ago, President Obama was still calling for a ‘clean’ debt ceiling increase and last night was still pushing for immediate tax increases on job creators.  So we came a long way during these negotiations.  Unfortunately, Senate Democrats and the White House stalled any attempt at real spending reform, resulting in this unpopular deal,” stated Westmoreland.

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 20)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

Scott Austin of Georgia:

“First, thank you to the hundreds of constituents who have called, e-mailed and posted comments on my Facebook and Twitter pages.  This was a difficult vote, but because of the comments and calls, I cast it with the confidence that it was the right vote for the eighth district of Georgia.  My constituents know, as well as I do, that we should do all that we can to keep from defaulting on our obligations.  However, a leader in the White House would have never allowed the discussion of a default to begin with and would have prioritized spending before this crisis came to a head.

“While this bill included some of the main principles of my preferred “Cut, Cap and Balance” bill it did not include enough of them.  As families across Georgia have realized – you can only spend as much as you take in.  “Cut, Cap and Balance” as well as the “Boehner Plan” required the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before allowing the President to raise the debt limit a second time.  Unfortunately, this requirement was left out of the compromise. Additionally, this bill includes cuts, insisted upon by the President, which would disproportionately fall in the area of defense, to the exclusion of other areas that are the true drivers of our national debt. The uncertainty surrounding these defense cuts could have a devastating impact on thousands of jobs in Middle Georgia –  a risk I’m not willing to take at a time when our unemployment rate continues to hover near double digits.

“Middle Georgians sent me here to fight for the personal freedoms, individual liberties and economic opportunities for our generation and the next.  I will never cease in that effort.  Unfortunately, this bill falls short of those goals and that is why I voted against it.”