——-
$70 Million for Salmon, $3 Million for Bee-Friendly Highways, and More Absurdities in the Omnibus Spending Bill
Plus: An attempt to criminalize porn, D.C. hopes making tourism more expensive will boost tourism, and more…
It’s nice to see at least some Republicans still fighting for fiscal restraint. House Republicans are taking issue with the $1.7 trillion spending bill being rushed through Congress this week. They’re objecting to specific provisions—$70 million for salmon?!—and to the massive size of the measure in general, as well as the fact that there’s scarcely enough time for lawmakers to read through the whole 4,000 page bill before the vote.
Republican fiscal restraint can be a fair-weather thing, popping up when Democrats are in power and disappearing when conservatives reign. There are some indications that’s what’s going on here now. But it’s still nice to see pushback against both the omnibus appropriations bill itself and the absurd manner in which it’s being considered.
In yesterday’s Roundup, we looked at some of the topline numbers in the bill, as well as the add-on proposals that were included (like a ban on TikTok on government devices) and left out (like a bill to make banking accessible for legal marijuana businesses). And since then, Reason writers have highlighted other facets of the bill, including the absence of a measure to fix the unjust disparity between penalties for offenses involving cocaine and those involving crack, and the inclusion of a pro-housing reform measure that seems likely to be ineffective.
Today, I’ll highlight a few more measures that did or didn’t make it into the bill, as well as some political controversy surrounding its passage.
JCPA OUT, ANTITRUST BILL IN
Let’s start with some good news: the dreadful Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA)was kept out of the bill. That’s good news for the press, media consumers, tech companies, and anyone who uses the internet. “The JCPA is a highly-controversial piece of legislation that did not belong in any end-of-year spending packages, and we are thankful Congressional leaders recognized this basic fact and successfully kept the JCPA out of the omnibus and all other lame duck legislation,” said Joshua Lamel, executive director of the copyright coalition Re:Create, in an emailed statement.
In yesterday’s Roundup, we looked at some of the topline numbers in the bill, as well as the add-on proposals that were included (like a ban on TikTok on government devices) and left out (like a bill to make banking accessible for legal marijuana businesses). And since then, Reason writers have highlighted other facets of the bill, including the absence of a measure to fix the unjust disparity between penalties for offenses involving cocaine and those involving crack, and the inclusion of a pro-housing reform measure that seems likely to be ineffective.
Today, I’ll highlight a few more measures that did or didn’t make it into the bill, as well as some political controversy surrounding its passage.
JCPA OUT, ANTITRUST BILL IN
Let’s start with some good news: the dreadful Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA)was kept out of the bill. That’s good news for the press, media consumers, tech companies, and anyone who uses the internet. “The JCPA is a highly-controversial piece of legislation that did not belong in any end-of-year spending packages, and we are thankful Congressional leaders recognized this basic fact and successfully kept the JCPA out of the omnibus and all other lame duck legislation,” said Joshua Lamel, executive director of the copyright coalition Re:Create, in an emailed statement.
Included, however, is a measure to give more money to antitrust enforcement, called the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act.
“While the most controversial antitrust bills considered in the 117th Congress didn’t make it into the omnibus package, H.R. 3843 is still a misguided bill that conservatives should reject,” said the Open Competition Center, an affiliate of Americans for Tax Reform.
MONEY FOR FISH, BEE-FRIENDLY HIGHWAYS, AND OPERA FIRE ALARMS
As folks have been highlighting more specifics from the spending bill, it becomes clear how we reach such an astronomical price tag. The government is trying to do way too much, and funding things that may be worthwhile but could be better left to private investment or state and local funding.
For instance, the bill allots $750,000 for fire alarm modernization at the metropolitan opera. There’s $3 million for an LGBTQ museum in New York, more than $3.6 million for a Michelle Obama Trail, and authorization for the creation of a Ukrainian Independence Park.
The bill sets aside $200 million for the Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund and $7.5 million for studying “the domestic radicalization phenomenon.”
The word salmon appears in the bill 48 times, Rep. Dan Bishop (R–N.C.) noted, and $65 million is allotted for Pacific coastal salmon recovery. There’s also an additional $5 million for studying the impacts of culverts, roads, and bridges on salmon populations, and $65.7 million for international fisheries commissions.
Bishop also noted the bill’s allotment of “$410 million towards border security for Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Oman,” $1,438,000,000 to be part of global multilateral organizations, and “$3 million for bee-friendly highways.”
GOP INFIGHTING
Some House Republicans are waging war on the bill and those who vote for it. On Tuesday, a group of 13 lawmakers issued a threat to conservative colleaguesin the Senate who vote in its favor.
“Due respect for Americans who elected us would call for not passing a ‘lame duck’ spending bill just days before Members fly home for Christmas and two weeks before a new Republican majority is sworn in for the 118th Congress,” they wrote. “Senate Republicans have the 41 votes necessary to stop this and should do so now.”
“The American people did not elect us—any of us—to continue the status quo in Washington,” the letter continued, signed by 10 current members of Congress and three members of congress elect. “They didn’t elect us to borrow and spend more money we do not have as interest rates skyrocket in response to government spending fueled inflation,” nor to “increase spending or even continue spending at current levels as higher interest payments consume an increasing percentage of our budget, and our $31 trillion national debt eclipses the size of our economy.”
Specifically, the disgruntled lawmakers call out spending on the FBI, the National Institutes for Health, the IRS, and “blank checks to Ukraine.”
Despite all this high-minded language, the burst of fiscal responsibility seems at least partially wielded as a bribe. The ability to stop the spending bill is “the one leverage point we have” to demand stronger border security policies, the letter says. The signatories oppose “any omnibus bill that further empowers Democrats and disregards this crisis.”
Some of the letter’s language makes it seem like they would be OK with massive spending so long as they also get more things they want. But it’s also full of spicy statements like this:
If Senate Republicans refuse to give the House Republican majority the opportunity to take the pen on FY23 appropriations to enact fiscal restraint…then what purpose is there to the Republican Party outside of an urge for more power, perpetuation of grift, and show hearings?
A great question!
“If any omnibus passes in the remaining days of this Congress, we will oppose and whip opposition to any legislative priority of those senators who vote for this bill,” the letter threatened.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) endorsed the letter, tweeting “Agreed. Except no need to whip—when I’m Speaker, their bills will be dead on arrival in the House if this nearly $2T monstrosity is allowed to move forward over our objections and the will of the American people.”
But a number of senators have dismissed the House GOP threat, notes The Hill. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.) said he plans to vote against the bill, but nonetheless disagrees with the House GOP tactic, calling it “chest thumping and immaturity.”
“If you just think about what they’re suggesting, it flies in the face of maturity and the ability to lead,” Cramer said.
Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas) said the House Republican ultimatum “doesn’t sound like a recipe for working together in the best interest of the country,” while Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R–W.Va.) called it letter “an idle threat.”
FREE MINDS
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) could pave the way for criminalizing porn. We noted this anti-porn bill’s introduction in Roundup last week. Now, Reason‘s Emma Camp has given it a closer read. ”The bill is yet another attempt by conservative lawmakers to regulate internet pornography,” but “while other attempts have aimed for less direct regulation, this bill goes right to the source—attempting to roll back the First Amendment protections that prevent state regulation of porn in the first place,” Camp wrote.
The bill would do this by basically defining all porn as obscene:
While obscenity is not afforded First Amendment protection, the bar for what actually amounts to obscenity is incredibly high—something Lee hopes to change.
The definition of obscenity is based on a stringent, three-part test originating from the 1973 case Miller v. California. According to the Miller test, a given image or video rises to obscenity if “(1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”…
The IODA is an attempt to challenge the Miller test’s prominence, creating an alternate definition of obscenity. According to IODA, content would be deemed obscene if: “(i) taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, (ii) depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person, and, (iii) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
That encompasses more than just the hardest core forms of pornography. This new definition would basically render the majority of pornography legally obscene. The change would thus allow for the criminalization of most internet pornography, by removing the requirement that sexual depictions be “patently offensive,” as well as the requirement that “contemporary community standards” be used to judge material.
You can find the full text of the bill here.
FREE MARKETS
People love paying more for hotel rooms, right? “I wish I could pay more money for the exact same hotel room and service,” said no one, ever. Yet folks on the D.C. city council think that making local hotel rooms more expensive will somehow help with a tourism slump.
D.C. already lobs a hefty tax on hotel rooms. Facing a downturn in tourism, city leaders yesterday voted to raise the tax rate even higher, by 1 percent, for four years. They plan to use the funds to pay for more advertising D.C. as a tourist destination.
That’s some serious politician-brain stuff right there. Instead of actually doing things to make the city more attractive to tourists, let’s make it less attractive while doing more PR! Sigh…
At present, the tax amounts to about $15 tacked on to every $100 paid for a hotel room, according to WUSA9. With the increase, it’ll amount to around $16 in taxes for every $100 spent on lodging. That might not seem like a big deal, but the costs can quickly add up.
A family staying in a $200 per night hotel room (which is the cost of a fairly mid-range hotel in the city) for four nights would wind up paying an extra $128. Or they could choose to stay in very nearby Virginia or Maryland, where hotel stays are taxed at a much lower rate.
If D.C. was serious about boosting tourism, it might consider lowering its hotel tax to the levels of neighboring states.
–
House Republicans Declare War on GOP Senators Who Back Lame-Duck Spending Bill
A group of 13 GOP House lawmakers on Monday vowed to retaliate against their Republican colleagues in the Senate who vote for a massive omnibus spending package before the lame duck Democratic Congress expires, rather than waiting until Republicans reclaim a House majority in the new year.
Bipartisan negotiators have reportedly assembled a $1.7 trillion government funding bill, including many earmarks for special interests, to avoid a shutdown at the end of the week. This sum would be on top of the record $858 billion in annual military spending, which cleared the House and Senate last week.
“Senate Republicans have the 41 votes to necessary to stop this and should do so now and show the Americans who elected you that they weren’t wrong in doing so,” the letter read.
The letter’s signatories include many members of the House Freedom Caucus, such as Representatives Chip Roy and Byron Donalds, and some newly-elected members who will assume office in the next session, such as Anna Paulina Luna and Eli Crane. They blasted Republicans who have entertained the omnibus bill for charging through reckless spending at the eleventh hour amid record inflation and a national debt that is eclipsing the size of the economy.
Rushing through the spending would effectively reward an administration that the members allege has abused its power and neglected the American people, including via a politically weaponized FBI, border crisis, and “blank checks” to Ukraine.
Their ultimatum comes after Roy publicly urgedSenate minority leader Mitch McConnell to put the brakes on major spending packages until the GOP takes its majority in the House. The GOP majority will be sworn in for the 118th Congress in just two weeks.
“I’m looking at Mitch McConnell when I say this: do your job, Leader McConnell! Do your job and follow the wishes of the American people who gave a majority to Republicans in the House of Representatives,” he said. “And let’s STOP this bill”
“Our citizens across America are sick of this,” says Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., pictured speaking March 1 during a town hall event hosted by House Republicans ahead of President Joe Biden’s first State of the Union address. (Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
As the clock ticks toward the new year, Congress is racing to pass funding for the government for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1
“Well, I was a no vote last week. I think we need to be doing our work. It’s amazing to me that the Democrats have been in control of the White House, the House, and the Senate,” Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., says about the “omnibus” spending package.
The Senate and the House advanced a “stopgap bill” last week that continues to fund existing programs and would give Congress until Friday at midnight to finalize a spending bill. The measure passed 71-19 in the Senate; it passed 224-201 in the House.
“Since January of last year, they’ve not passed a budget,” Hern says. “They’ve not done appropriations in regular order. They have no one to blame but themselves for the almost $5 trillion in spending added to our debt in the last 23 months.
“Here we are at the very end of the funding, which was supposed to be done by Sept. 30, [and we] keep kicking the can down the road,” says Hern, who was unanimously elected last month as chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
Hern joins this episode of “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss the gigantic omnibus spending bill, some of the Republican Party’s top priorities for 2023, and how conservatives can navigate with slim control of only one chamber of Congress.
Samantha Aschieris: Rep. Kevin Hern is joining the podcast today. He represents Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, and was recently elected to chair the Republican Study Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.
Rep. Kevin Hern: It is so good to be with you today.
Aschieris: Well, let’s dive right into what’s going on right now in Congress. Last week, the House and the Senate advanced a stopgap bill to avoid a government shutdown. Congress has until this Friday to pass funding for next year. First and foremost, what do you think of the spending package?
Hern: Well, I was a no vote last week. I think we need to be doing our work. It’s amazing to me that the Democrats have been in control of the White House, the House, and the Senate. Since January of last year, they’ve not passed a budget. They’ve not done appropriations in regular order. They have no one to blame but themselves for the almost $5 trillion in spending added to our debt in the last 23 months.
Here we are at the very end of the funding, which was supposed to be done by Sept. 30, keep kicking the can down the road. Here we are now looking at a monstrous bill, otherwise known as the omnibus bill, that most are expecting to add another $500 billion to the national debt.
Our citizens across America are sick of this. They want us to get back to doing what we’re supposed to do, which is fund the government in regular order.
Aschieris: Can you speak a little bit more about what’s actually in the package? Do you have any concerns about it?
Hern: We’ve got to fund the 12 appropriations, which fund the government. Certainly, things like military, but all of our social welfare programs as well, our National Institutes of Health, and [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], and all the programs there. Our federal government, funding people, making sure people have their payroll to keep the government moving.
But also, there are all these pet projects, all the earmarks that are in there, whether it’s with our senator friends, Republican senator friends, or Republican House friends who are wanting to spend money to take back to their districts. All of these are going to be lumped in.
That’s what they do when they put these bills together, is to try to entice people to vote for them by giving them special deals, earmarks, pork projects to take back to their home. Some are putting their names on buildings, projects, others are millions and millions of dollars to go to different arts centers in their districts and things like that.
Again, the federal taxpayers, the American taxpayers who fund the government, are sick and tired of this out-of-control spending.
Aschieris: Now, we are just a few weeks away from Republicans taking back control in the House. Why aren’t Republicans just saying no to this package? Why not push for a continuing resolution to get to the next Congress?
Hern: Well, certainly, the three options that we had on the table to look at were an omnibus bill, which would go all the way and fund until the end of the next fiscal year, which is Sept. 30, 2023. The thought there are from the Democrat Party and from the 12 or so Republicans that are going to vote for this and the Senate was to get out so that the president didn’t have to deal with the debt limit with the Republican House. To your point, we’re taking the majority here in just about two weeks.
Then also, there was the longer-term continuing resolution, which meant we would fund at the regular level that we’re currently at until the end of Sept. 30.
What we were pushing for in order to keep the government open was a shorter-term continued resolution that would get us, say, until March 1. And that way the House would get back the opportunity to pass appropriations bill—first pass budget appropriation bills and send them to the Senate to get us moved back in the right direction.
If you look across the country over the last two years, inflation has gone rampant, highest in 40 years. It’s been Democrat economists that have said it was because of spending. And even my Republican colleagues out there who love to spend are just not listening to what the American people are saying.
Aschieris: Yeah, it’s been really interesting to see the last couple of weeks leading up to this omnibus bill. And now, of course, we’re down to the final crunch before the House flips.
I want to talk just longer term with Republicans. As we’ve been talking about taking back the House, how can you, with the Republican Party, avoid landing in a similar situation next year when you’re negotiating the spending package for 2024?
Hern: Yeah, so, looking at what’s happened in the past, and future [House Speaker Kevin] McCarthy has spoken to this, is that Republicans in the House have kind of worked back and forth with the Senate and actually missed deadlines because they’re trying to put together a package on the House side that the senators, the Republican senators, will support, only to find out when they send the bill over there that it gets changed so much and it comes back to the House. And there’s just been total disgust with what we’ve seen.
So what Kevin McCarthy has said, and I totally agree, is we’re going to pass a budget out of the House that cuts discretionary spending, that looks at the opportunities we have out there to get our budgets balanced and put a balanced budget on the floor, and then send that and the appropriations bills to the senators and let them deal with it. And let them tell the American people, which will be a Democrat control, let them tell the American people why they don’t want to balance the budget just like our citizens do or states do. And then also, it’ll be upon the White House to say that they don’t want a balanced budget. But the House representatives will push out a balanced budget.
You mentioned in your opening that I’m the chair of the Republican Study Committee for the next two years. For the past two years I’ve been the budget chairman and we’ve created two balanced budgets. By the way, the only two budgets that have been done in Congress were done by the Republican Study Committee last year and this year.
Aschieris: And just along the lines of budgets, can you talk a little bit about how Congress is budgeting given that we’re already in $31 trillion worth of debt and rising?
Hern: Well, it’s really no different other than the numbers are just huge—it’s no different than what you have to do in your own household. You have to neutralize spending more than you earn first before you can actually start paying back your debt. That’s no different than in the federal government.
And that’s why we have to have a balanced budget. And it needs to balance sooner rather than later because what that means is at balance point, the House, the Republican Study Committees last year was about six years, this was about seven years, meaning it would take that long of trimming costs, cutting expenses, growing revenues to get us to a point where our outputs every year match what we were taking in.
And at that point, as those crossed, we would have excess dollars to start paying down our debt. Most Americans would say that’s impossible. As a matter of fact, that’s happened in all of our lifetimes. Back in ’97 through 2001, we actually had budget surpluses under President Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and Trent Lott.
So when people come together—Republicans, Democrats, House, Senate, House, Senate, and the White House all come together—we can actually do the work. We just have to sit down at the table and make it happen.
Aschieris: And Congressman, we’ve heard in the news a lot that this budget for the next year, if it does pass, would be the Pelosi-Schumer-Biden agenda. How do you feel about locking in a Biden-Pelosi-Schumer agenda for the next year, even though Americans, as we’ve talked about, voted for Republicans to control the House?
Hern: Well, I’ll be voting against it. I think it’s wrong. I think the Democrats have lost the House. They should have funded the government back in September. At this point in time, forcing this late year-end spending at Christmastime is absolutely ridiculous.
We will go ahead and do our work underneath this. We will pass a budget on the House floor. We will work on the appropriations bills. We will do the work that we’re supposed to be doing on the House side.
It’ll be yet to see of what the Democrat-led Senate does or what the Democrat-led White House does. But coming through this year, we will have a budget starting on Oct. 1, 2023, going forward, that represents conservative ideas, which means not spending more than we earn and start getting us back to a fiscal-responsible nation.
Aschieris: Now, as we’ve been talking about, in just about two weeks, start of the new Congress with the GOP having the majority in the House. As we’ve also been talking about, as I mentioned at the top, and you also talked about you being the new chairman of the Republican Study Committee. What are some of your top priorities for the next Congress?
Hern: Yeah, I think it’s one of certainly economic security. If you look at national security that every American talks about every day, we know about our military and what it does around the world. But on the domestic side, when you look at national security, it really boils down to sort of a three-legged stool.
It’s border security. We see what’s happening right now with lifting a Title 42. What’s going on there in the next couple of days. Massive amounts of people coming across the southern border. You got Democrat mayors really up in arms, screaming at the White House, “We need to do something.”
When you look at what’s happening with energy security, this president, this White House, these Democrats have worked overtime to destroy our fossil fuel industry in our country, only now to go beg Iran and Venezuela to start up their oil production and for us to send literally billions of American taxpayer dollars to these rogue nations when we could be doing that work here.
And then, finally, going back to this economic security, we’ve got $31.5 trillion in debt and growing. There’s no end in sight with the current spending of the Democrats. We’ve got to fix that. We got to do it now.
So we’ll be working on those three areas—economic security, energy security, border security—looking at how we fix our national security stance and the posture in those areas. And holding the Republican leadership as well in the House to most conservative bills that can be brought out of the House in these particular areas, especially when it comes to spending.
Aschieris: And just along the same lines, what is a policy area that maybe Republicans haven’t focused on as much in the past that you would like to see them focus on next year?
Hern: Well, not just focus on, I think, as Republicans, we need to come together on the House side and really fix our immigration issue in America once and for all. It’s not difficult. It’s going to take hard work. It’s going to take people sitting down at the table to get this done.
But the folks on the border are correct in saying that it is a constitutional requirement job of Congress to fix it and for the White House to come alongside and make sure that it gets done as well. It’s not the responsibility of the states. Unfortunately, and sadly, they’ve had to take on a federal role in protecting their borders from a foreign nation. That sounds like back in the 1800s doing that, not now in the modern age. And Congress has really shirked its responsibilities of not fixing our border security issues. And we have to do that once and for all.
So I think we’ve kind of put that to the side.
We’re going to be talking about health care as we go forward, how we make it more affordable for the American people.
The Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was supposed to be about lowering health care costs. It didn’t lower health care costs, it removed your ability to keep your doctor. Pharmaceutical costs are going through the roof. And so we’ve got a lot of work to do and we’ve got a short time to do it. So we need to get our speaker elected on Jan. 3 and we need to move forward.
Aschieris: And just one final question for you as we head into the new year, can conservatives get any wins, in your opinion, in the new Congress when the GOP doesn’t control the Senate? And if so, how?
Hern: Well, I think the way you get the wins is that you demonstrate that we can actually get our stuff together in the House and we can elect a leader and we can start on the policies that need to be pushed forward, like, again, economic policy.
But also, I think we have a Congress, not just Republican Congress, all of Congress has a responsibility of oversight on the executive branch of government. Just because the Democrats didn’t do it in the last two years doesn’t mean that it didn’t need to be done.
So you’re going to see the oversight action, the accountability action of Congress move forward and bring highlights to stuff that maybe it happened in the Department of Justice with the FBI, even with the White House. And when that takes place, you’re going to start having people look at lack of confidence in the leadership.
What you’re also going to find, I think, is the Democrats have gone so far left, so far progressive, so far toward the socialist democrat factions of their party that the American people that are moderate Democrats are going to start pulling the party back toward the center, which is what happened in the days of Bill Clinton.
They had moved to the Left and they realized in the modern day, New Democrats, they had to move back to the center. And Bill Clinton picked out some areas where he needed to work with Republicans to save the nation. And that’s when we’ve got the Welfare to Work to get people moved off of the social safety nets, back into jobs.
And I think you’re going to see the White House have to do some of that if they have any hopes for a Democrat to be in the White House starting in 2025.
Aschieris: Well, Rep. Kevin Hern, thank you so much for joining the podcast today. We really appreciate your insight and we’ll have to have you back on for any updates. Thank you so much.
Hern: Thank you. And Merry Christmas.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
Will Republicans Ever Stand Up to Democrats’ Government ‘Shutdown’ Scare Tactics? Probably Not.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.—seen here outside the Capitol on Aug. 4 touting the Democrats’ big-spending bill they dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act—can be counted on to browbeat Senate Republicans if they don’t agree to an omnibus spending bill to avoid a supposed government “shutdown.” (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
There is little Republicans and Democrats in Congress agree on these days, but spending (and borrowing) money is as nonpartisan as it gets.
House Democrats apparently have decided to leave their majority with a spending spree. They’ll do it the way they usually do. In a script familiar to an extortionist, and to the public because we’ve seen it before, Democrats can be counted on to threaten a government “shutdown” if Republicans don’t go along with their plans to spend more money we don’t have.
Never mind that for the next few weeks Democrats still have a House majority. Republicans (and much of the major media) will still be blamed should a shutdown occur. Remember previous threats about retirees not getting their Social Security checks and closed signs at national parks? It’s all theatrics.
Dec. 16 is the “deadline” for the expiration of funding the government, and don’t you know that Democrats will be hauling out their “Scrooge” and “Grinch” metaphors if Republicans don’t do their bidding.
Not all GOP members have clean hands when it comes to spending and pork for their districts. A majority of their caucus voted last week to restore earmarks, which they once eliminated, but the temptation to succumb to these spending perks appears to have been too seductive. It always is when they’re spending other people’s money to perpetuate their careers.
A Wall Street Journal editorial notes, “Democrats want to stuff all 12 of Congress’s annual overdue spending bills into a giant ‘omnibus’ to finance the government through September 2023. According to their media note-takers, the failure to pass an omnibus bill will result in one of two scenarios: a government shutdown, or the ruin of federal agencies forced to maintain spending at current levels.”
Heaven forbid that the government should restrain itself when it comes to spending at current levels, which, of course, are raised nearly every year, giving us a $31 trillion debt and counting.
Where are the Republican leaders who will teach Americans we can’t go on like this? Ronald Reagan was the last Republican president to warn against debt. Since members of Congress can’t restrain themselves when it comes to spending, what is needed is an outside auditor to go through every federal program and recommend what should be cut or eliminated.
Because Congress would have to approve of such an approach and then approve spending reductions, that seems as unlikely to happen as their voting for term limits.
Warnings about overspending and high taxation are ignored. The Founders gave us a Constitution that established boundaries beyond which government cannot go. They repeatedly advised against excessive and ongoing debt. That government has long exceeded constitutional limits is why it has become so dysfunctional in so many areas.
The Founders understood human nature and its tendency to excess in the absence of controls. In 1793, George Washington said, “”No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable.”
John Adams put it more succinctly: “There are two ways to enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.”
The federal government is taking in a record amount of revenue, but spending more than it receives, and Democrats want to spend even more.
Why is Congress deaf to the warnings of the Founders? They aren’t deaf. They have covered their ears and eyes, and don’t want to hear it to their everlasting shame and the harm they are passing down to future generations.
COPYRIGHT 2022 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY LLC
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>
Dan Mitchell testifies on the debt ceiling in front of the Joint Economi…
REMY: RAISE THE DEBT CEILING RAP
REMY: RAISE THE DEBT CEILING RAP (AGAIN)
TRY BORROWING AT A BANK WITH A FINANCIAL CONDITION LIKE THE USA HAS:
December 10, 2021
The Honorable Tom Tillis of North Carolina
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Tillis
After reading all your views on self-professed conservative economics and cutting spending I was surprised to read your name in this article below that said you made a way for Democrats to raise the debt ceiling even though 72% of your Republican friends in the senate would have no part of it and only 1 out of 201 Republicans in the House voted to do so!!!
Senate clears expedited debt limit process, Medicare cuts delay
Lawmakers still need to pass separate debt ceiling increase by next week to avoid Treasury cash crunch
Posted December 9, 2021 at 1:18pm, Updated at 6:27pm
The Senate broke a logjam over the statutory debt limit Thursday, clearing a measure that would allow Democrats to increase the nation’s borrowing capacity on their own without any Republican assistance necessary.
Final passage came after a critical procedural vote, in which 14 Republicans joined all Democrats on a cloture motion to limit debate. That bipartisan cooperation — on a deal brokered by Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — cleared the way for Democrats to be able to increase the debt limit on their own and avoid a fiscal crisis.
Schumer thanked McConnell for the agreement in floor remarks Thursday, saying their talks were “fruitful, candid, productive.”
“The proposal I worked on with Leader McConnell will allow Democrats to do precisely what we’ve been seeking to do for months… provide a simple majority vote to fix the debt ceiling without having to resort to a convoluted, lengthy and ultimately risky process,” Schumer said.
McConnell began drawing battle lines over the debt limit this summer, alerting Democrats that Republicans didn’t intend to cooperate on any debt limit bill unless Democrats stopped work on their roughly $2 trillion climate and social spending reconciliation bill. If they continued to work on that package, he said, they should use the same fast-track budget reconciliation process to advance a debt limit bill.
Democrats vowed not to use the reconciliation process for the debt limit or to stop work on their tax and spending package. The intransigence placed Congress in a deadlock over the debt limit as the Treasury Department inched closer to running out of money to pay all of the country’s bills in October.
Nearly all House Republicans — with the exception of retiring Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger — voted against the measure Tuesday, railing against the agreement that McConnell brokered with Schumer.
Many Republicans argued that McConnell should have extracted some sort of concession from Democrats to help them advance a debt limit bill outside the reconciliation process, or forced them to use budget reconciliation.
In addition to McConnell, Republican Sens. John Barrasso, Wyo.; Roy Blunt, Mo.; Richard M. Burr, N.C.; Shelley Moore Capito, W.Va.; Susan Collins, Maine; John Cornyn, Texas; Joni Ernst, Iowa; Rob Portman, Ohio; Lisa Murkowski, Alaska; Mitt Romney, Utah; John Thune, S.D.; Thom Tillis, N.C.; and Roger Wicker, Miss., voted for cloture. The final tally was 64-36.…
Your vote to help the Democrats jump over the debt ceiling limit hurdle reminded me of this cartoon:
A.F. BRANCO December 10, 2021
DON’T YOU SEE THAT MAKING THE GOVERNMENT LIVE ON WHAT IT BRINGS IN WILL MAKE IT PRIORITIZE AND THE USA WILL NOT END UP AS GREECE? WHY GIVE THE DEMOCRATS A FREE PASS NOW?
I would love to get your reaction to this rap song which was recently written about you enabled the Democrats to do:
Remy: Raise the Debt Ceiling Rap (Again)
Putting America’s depressing fiscal policy to a beat since 2011!
Ten years and another $15 trillion added to the debt since his original rap, Remy is back to make it rain.
Written and performed by Remy; video produced by Meredith & Austin Bragg; mastering by Ben Karlstrom.
LYRICS:
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling again!
Thirty trillion in debt and yo we’re back again
Still printing lots of money, telling all of your friends
I told you this would happen but you were a doubting Thomas
Thirty is the last trillion I’ll ever need—I swear, I promise
It’s like we’re spending junkies just getting the itch
Can I have another trillion? I promised my district a bridge
It was a crisis before, we took the lesson to heart
By spending so much money now we’re printing pressing the chart
Spending billions and billions on sweet military gear
Did any wind up with the enemy? What do you want to hear?
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling again!
Back up in the Fed and we’re still super stoked
Somehow printing lots of money while we’re working remote
Still dropping IOUs in every fund yes sir
Hamilton started this place—that’s why it only goes “BURR!!!”
Prices are rising at every venue it’s bad
And for sure that dollar menu looks especially sad
Gas prices are rising, it’s getting hard for the competent
It costs an arm and a leg—where am I? The Saudi consulate?
Leaving IOUs you should give it a try son
M1 used to sink your battleship, now it’s what you use to buy one
Just say the magic word, I’ll set the printer abuzz
Charmin might run out of paper son, but guess who never does?
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling again!
Now if you examine the chart and you look close again
We borrow more than 40 cents of every dollar we spend
Nondiscretionary spending is at terrible paces!
Do you have a response? Yes! You’re racist
We should spend most on children! We should spend most on patients!
Okay—hear me out—why don’t we spend most on interest payments?
We’re playing with fire we know the end of this story!
How do you classify your incompetence? Transitory
Objects in the mirror are closer than they seem
And to a man with a printer each problem looks like a ream
But when I’m looking at the folks that we’ve elected to lead
I’m guessing that it won’t be long till we’re back saying we need to
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling!
Raise the debt ceiling again!
SADLY IT WAS JUST 10 YEARS AGO WHEN REMY WROTE ABOUT A 15 TRILLION DEBT:
LYRICS:
Raise da debt ceiling!Raise da debt ceiling!Raise da debt ceiling!Raise da debt ceiling!
14 trillion in debtbut yo we ain’t got no qualmsdroppin $100 billsand million dollar bombs
spending money we don’t havethat’s the name of the gamethey call me cumulo nimbusbecause you KNOW I make it rain
bail out all kind of carsgot all kind of whipsladies ask me how I get emI tell em STIMULUS
Social Security surplus?Oh, guess what? it’s goneI got my hands on everythinglike Dominique Strauss Kahn
ain’t got no Medicare trust fundson, that’s just absurdspending every single penny thatwe see, son, have you heard?
ain’t got no moral objectionsain’t got kind of complaintsain’t got no quantitativestatutory budget restraints
so…[CHORUS]
Yo, we up in the Fedand we living in styleSpending lots of moneywhile we sipping crystal
still making it rainand yeah it be so pleasingwait, not making it rain–we be “Quantitative Easing!”
QE1, QE2QE4, QE3Dropping IOU’sin every fund that I see
printing the cashinflating the moniescallin up China”a-yo we straight out of 20’s!”
in the clubwe be louding outwhile to the market, yeahwe be crowding out
on the beach getting tanand sipping Coronawe got a monetary plan–and it involves a lot of toner…
[CHORUS]
So if you look at the chartand examine the trendwe borrow 40 cents of everysingle dollar we spend
and non-discretionary spendingincreases every daydo you have a comment for Committee?I MAKE IT RAIN
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speakerwould you beam me up?A Congressperson cutting spending?Couldn’t dream me up
We’re gonna defaultif we follow this road!I should have thought of this14 trillion dollars ago!
I’m the king of the linksI’m a menace at tennisI’m sticking spinnaz on my rimspicking winnaz in business
if you’re looking for some cashit’s about to get heavyI got some big ol’ piles of moneyand guess what–they shovel ready
[CHORUS]
I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRESPOND WITH MILTON FRIEDMAN AND READ MANY OF HIS BOOKS AND HERE IS A GREAT ARTICLE I WISH YOU HAD READ EARLIER SO YOU WOULDN’T HAVE VOTED THE WAY YOU DID!!!
President Joe Biden has declared that his proposed $3.5 (or is it $5.5?) trillion “Build Back Better” social agenda will have a “zero” cost—as in $0.00! Why? Because the added expenditures will be covered by increased revenues drawn from businesses and the “rich.”
The President and other progressive Democrats, who have parroted the Biden claim, should reflect on the wisdom of the late Milton Friedman, who had a knack for crystallizing stark economic truths.
During the early 1980s, when supply-side economics was the rage, Reagan Republicans promoted tax-rate cuts as a means of reviving the economy (because the cuts would increase people’s incentives to work, save, and invest), which Friedman believed distracted them from concern about what was happening to government outlays, which continued to rise throughout the decade.
Friedman framed the fiscal issues of the day differently, and with far greater clarity than anyone else. He admonished everyone (including President Reagan’s advisors), to “Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because that’s the true tax. . . If you’re not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you’re paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or in the form of borrowing.”
And make no mistake, government outlays have risen substantially, especially lately, increasing from $3.9 trillion in 2016 to $6.6 trillion in 2020 (including Covid outlays). Even without passage of the reconciliation bill, the White House estimates that federal outlays will continue their upward march through 2026.
Friedman understood that the real taxes on the economy ultimately come in the form of government outlays siphoning off resources for public purposes that would otherwise be used in the private sector. If the government chooses to build a bridge or road, the concrete and steel could have been used to produce houses and office buildings.
How the added government outlays are financed—through taxes, newly printed dollars and inflation, or debt—is of secondary importance, perhaps only marginally affecting people’s incentives. The costs of expanded government outlays will be incurred through the shift of resources from private-directed uses to public-directed uses.
By declaring that his “Build Back Better” agenda has no costs, President Biden must be confused—if he truly means what he has been saying. He may think that the dollars expended for an expanded array of welfare recipients will come only at the expense of the “rich.” Not so at all. Those transferred dollars will enable the recipients to buy goods they could not otherwise buy, which means they can pull resources away from the production of the variety of goods that ordinary Walmart (and Home Depot and Kroger) shoppers, many with far less-than-privileged means, would have bought.
Richard McKenzie is an economics professor (emeritus) in the Merage Business School at the University of California, Irvine. His latest book is The Selfish Brain: A Layman’s Guide to a New Way of Economic Thinking (2021).
HERE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS YOU HAVE IGNORED:
The Solution to the Debt Ceiling Debacle
Fundamental spending reform needed.
The following testimony was given by Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy to the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (Committee on Financial Services) during a hearing on federal spending and the debt limit held earlier today.
Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member Green, and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
After offering a brief look at how we arrived at our current state, I would like to make the following points:
- High and increasing debt has adverse consequences for our economy.
- There are a number of institutional reforms that can be implemented to check the spending that drives this growth in debt.
- Entitlement reform is essential, as rapidly burgeoning growth in entitlements is driving the growth in spending.
- The latest increase in the debt ceiling gives us some time to reach an agreement that reflects real reform, and there are sufficient assets available that default is not a concern.
The Increasing Federal Debt
The origins of the federal government’s statutory debt limit can be traced back to 1917, when the country borrowed money to finance World War I.[i]Limitations on federal borrowing were intended to control congressional spending by limiting the amount of debt that the federal government could accumulate. Policymakers have routinely pushed the debt limit ever higher ever since. Indeed, the limit has been increased almost 20 times since 1993,[ii] and the federal debt has ballooned from less than $5 trillion to $19 trillion. That figure continues to rise, thanks to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which passed in October and suspended the debt limit until March 16, 2017.[iii]
It is ironic that the suspension of the debt limit was part of a deal to increase spending above the Budget Control Act of 2011’s intended spending caps (for the second time). Despite the popular perception of Republicans and Democrats caught in gridlock, the truth is that after the political dust settles, the end result is always the same: a bipartisan agreement on more spending and more debt.
This needs to change. According to the most recent 10-year fiscal forecast from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “federal outlays remain near 21 percent of GDP for the next few years—higher than their average of 20.2 percent over the past 50 years . . . [and] if current laws generally remained the same, growth in outlays would outstrip growth in the economy, and outlays would rise to 23 percent of GDP by 2026.”[iv]
CBO projections also show that federal debt held by the public will reach 76 percent of GDP by the end of 2016—a full two percentage points higher than 2014. It is also expected to grow from $14 trillion this year to $24 trillion by 2026.
That’s probably an underestimate since it is a projection based on the assumption that policymakers will keep their promises to cut spending and raise taxes. Based on Congress’s termination of the sequester years ahead of schedule and its historical propensity to spend more and more each year, such an assumption is unlikely to come true. The projections also assume that the economy will grow at current projected rates and without any recessions. This, too, is unlikely, since the country tends to go into recession every five to six years.
Deficits are also going to go up to $544 billion from last year’s $439 billion. Over the coming decade, the size of the federal deficit will double to reach an annual gap of almost 5 percent of GDP. CBO predicts that deficits will total $9.4 trillion. That’s up $1.5 trillion from its August report. It also notes that under the alternative scenario budget projection, spending will increase to 21.9 percent of GDP in 2020, to 25.8 percent in 2030, and to 30.4 percent in 2040.
The expansion of mandatory programs—such as Medicare, Medicaid, Affordable Care Act subsidies, and Social Security—is the driving force behind this spending growth and our exploding debt. These entitlements will trigger even higher levels of debt in the years outside the 10-year budget window.
Unfortunately, as the debt grows, the interest payments on that debt will grow as well. If the United States does not change course, interest on the debt will end up as one of its biggest budget items. Our unfunded liabilities keep going up, too. The net present value of the promises made to the American people for which the United States does not have the money to pay is roughly $75.5 trillion, according to the Treasury Department.
High debt levels are problematic. As CBO explained a few years ago:
Such high and rising debt later in the coming decade would have serious negative consequences: When interest rates return to higher (more typical) levels, federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national saving, over time the capital stock would be smaller and total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they would have if debt levels were lower to use tax and spending policy to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, a large debt increases the risk of a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.[v]
These numbers are important to keep in mind when discussing the next debt ceiling deadline. Indeed, when March 2017 comes around we can expect that Washington will once again have the same debate it has had for the last few years about whether or not to raise the debt ceiling and under what circumstances. On one side you will find those who want to raise the limit without questions asked. On the other side, you will find those who will demand reforms in exchange for yet another increase in the debt ceiling.
Continuing to pass debt ceiling increases without proper spending reforms would be irresponsible. It is also irresponsible to signal to the international community that the US government could possibly default on its debt obligations while Washington works through whether it will raise the debt limit before or after it formulates a plan to reduce government spending.
WHAT’S AT STAKE
To be sure, default should not be an option on the table. However, raising the debt ceiling without a commitment to improve our long-term debt problem has adverse consequences. In 2011, the rating agency Fitch warned the US government that while it supported raising the debt ceiling, it also wanted the government to come up with a credible medium-term deficit-reduction plan.[vi] Other rating agencies at the time also warned the United States of the negative consequences of not dealing with the country’s long-term debt.
If Congress does not address our debt problem before March 2017, the optimal outcome would then be to raise the debt limit while Congress and the president pass a credible plan to reduce near- and long-term spending at the same time.
Fortunately, if an agreement to control spending and raise the debt limit is not reached, the United States need not risk defaulting on its debt. The Treasury Department has the legal authority to prioritize interest payments on the debt above all other obligations, whether that means delaying payments to contractors or managing other obligations. But Congress should not be forced to raise the debt ceiling under false pretenses.
As was the case in 2011, the United States will have enough expected cash flow (tax revenue) and assets on hand to avoid either of these unattractive options. Managing payments in this manner is by no means optimal, and Treasury officials have indicated that this will be difficult owing to payment automation. That said, it is important to recognize the options that are available to prevent a default. While Washington has difficult choices to make, defaulting on its debt obligations should not be part of the discussion about how to handle the debt limit or reduce long-term government spending.
REAL INSTITUTIONAL REFORM
The heated rhetoric coming in March 2017 about whether Congress should raise the debt ceiling will obscure the federal government’s real problem: an unprecedented increase in government spending and the future explosion of entitlement spending has created a fiscal imbalance today and for the years to come. No matter what Congress decides to do about the debt ceiling, the United States must implement institutional reforms that constrain government spending and return the country to a sustainable fiscal position.
Real institutional reforms, as opposed to onetime cuts, would change the trajectory of fiscal policy and put the United States on a more sustainable path. Such reforms could include:
1. A constitutional amendment to limit spending. The inability of lawmakers to constrain their own spending makes spending limits enforced through the US Constitution preferable.[vii]
2. Meaningful budget reforms that limit lawmakers’ tendency to spend. In the absence of constitutional rules, budget rules should have broad scope, few and high-hurdle escape clauses, and minimal accounting discretion.[viii]
3. The end of budget gimmicks. Creative bookkeeping is at the center of many countries’ financial troubles. Congress should institute a transparent budget process and end abuse of the emergency spending rule, reliance on overly rosy scenarios, and all other gimmicks.[ix]
4. A strict cut-as-you-go system. This system should apply to the entire federal budget, not just to a small portion of it. There should be no new spending without offsetting cuts.[x]
5. A BRAC-like commission for discretionary spending. Commissions composed of independent experts often tackle intractable political problems successfully.[xi]
REAL ENTITLEMENT REFORMS
As mentioned earlier, the drivers of our future debt are spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Affordable Care Act subsidies, and Social Security. Without reforms today, vast tax increases will be needed to pay for the unfunded promises made to a steadily growing cohort of seniors.
While economists disagree when it comes to fiscal policy, a consensus has emerged that spending-based fiscal adjustments are not only more likely to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio than tax-based ones but are also less likely to trigger a recession.[xii] In fact, if accompanied by the right type of policies (especially changes to public employees’ pay and public pension reforms), spending-based adjustments can actually be associated with economic growth.
Fortunately, numerous workable solutions are available to lawmakers, including adding a system of personal savings accounts to Social Security, liberalizing medical savings accounts, and making the latter permanent to reduce healthcare costs by increasing competition between providers and making consumers more responsive to tradeoffs.[xiii]
These options are supposed to encourage families to save more and also to use their money more responsibly and in a manner more consistent with their long-term needs. And since taxpayers remain in control of their cash, they can also pass it along if they don’t use it all before they die—giving the next generation a head start when it comes to building assets.
Better yet, we should free the healthcare supply from the many constraints imposed by federal and state governments and the special interests they serve.[xiv]The stakes are high: Bringing revolutionary innovation to this industry could mean not just bending the healthcare cost curve but breaking it to bits—making the need for health insurance much less important, if not moot, in many cases.
REVENUE AND ASSETS AVAILABLE TO FUND OUR COMMITMENT UNTIL AN AGREEMENT IS REACHED
With that in mind, let’s think about what happens in March 2017. At that time, the government will reach the debt ceiling, and the Treasury will no longer be able to issue federal debt. The federal government could reduce spending, increase federal revenues by a corresponding amount to cover the gap, or find other funding mechanisms. This would allow time for Congress and the president to reach an agreement to change the country’s financial path before raising the debt ceiling.
At that time, the Treasury Department will have several financial management options to continue paying the government’s obligations. These include (1) prioritizing payments;[xv] (2) taking financial steps, including permitting the suspension of investments in, and the redemption of securities held by, certain government trust funds or postponing the sale of nonmarketable debt;[xvi] (3) liquidating some assets to pay government bills;[xvii] and (4) using the Social Security Trust Fund to continue paying Social Security benefits.[xviii]
PRIORITIZING PAYMENTS
The Secretary of the Treasury has long-standing authority to prioritize payments and does not have to pay bills in the order in which they are received. The US Government Accountability Office found that
the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to determine the order in which obligations are to be paid should the Congress fail to raise the statutory debt ceiling and revenues are inadequate to cover all required payments. There is no statute or other basis for concluding that the Treasury must pay outstanding obligations in the order they are presented for payment. Treasury is free to liquidate obligations in any order it determines will best serve the interests of the United States.[xix]
According to a report by the Treasury Department’s Inspector General (IG), during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis the Treasury “considered a range of options with respect to how Treasury would operate if the debt ceiling was not raised.” Further, the report notes that Treasury officials told the IG that “organizationally they viewed the option of delaying payments as the least harmful among the options under review” and that “the decision of how Treasury would have operated if the U.S. had exhausted its borrowing authority would have been made by the President in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.”[xx]
TEMPORARY MEASURES
During the last debt ceiling debate in 2011, my colleague Jason Fichtner and I listed all the assets that Treasury could tap into to avoid a default until an agreement between the president and Congress be reached.[xxi] We updated this report in 2013.[xxii] At the time we explained that Treasury was expected to collect $2.6 trillion in revenue. We wrote:
That alone would be enough to cover interest on the debt ($218 billion), thereby avoiding any technical default of the US government on its debt obligations to Social Security ($809 billion), Medicare ($581 billion), and Medicaid ($267 billion), and it would leave approximately $725 billion for other priorities.
In addition, we noted that the Treasury Department had financial measures at its disposal to fund government operations temporarily without having to issue new debt. To be clear, our list was only meant to present the range of possible options available to Congress. But, as we noted then, those may not be good or desirable options.
These assets totaled $1.9 trillion and included $50.2 billion in nonrestricted cash on hand,[xxiii] $121.1 billion in restricted cash and other monetary assets (gold, international monetary assets, foreign currency),[xxiv] and the redemption of existing investments in other trust funds.[xxv]
We also noted that the government could rely on the determination of a “debt issuance suspension period.” This determination would permit the redemption of existing, and the suspension of new, investments of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF).[xxvi] Right now there is $858.7 billion intergovernmental holdings in the CSRDF.
In March 2017, the numbers will be different, but the same assets may be used to avoid a default. Relying on any of these sources of funds or increasing the debt ceiling without reducing existing budget commitments illustrates the irresponsible path the country is on and the urgent need for institutional spending reform. Nonetheless, these assets could be used as a temporary measure to allow Congress and the administration to negotiate spending reductions and institutional reforms to the budget process to ensure the nation is put back on a sound fiscal path.
Thank you. I am happy to take your questions.
[i] Congressional Research Service, “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” October 1, 2015, 5.
[ii] Ibid, 11.
[iii] Veronique de Rugy, “Budget Deal Is Business-as-Usual in Washington,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University, November 18, 2015.
[iv] Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2016 to 2026,” January 2016, 4.
[v] Congressional Budget Office, “Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023,” May 2013.
[vi] Veronique de Rugy, “Policy Implications of the S&P Warnings,” The Corner, National Review, July 22, 2011. Also see Jeannette Neumann, “Fitch Unveils Two Possible Routes to Downgrading US Debt Rating,” Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2013.
[vii] David M. Primo, “Constitution Is Only Way to Cut US Deficit,” Bloomberg Business, February 24, 2011.
[viii] David M. Primo, “Making Budget Rules Bite” (Mercatus on Policy, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, March 2010).
[ix] Veronique de Rugy, “Budget Gimmicks or the Destructive Art of Creative Accounting” (Mercatus Working Paper, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, June 2010).
[x] Veronique de Rugy and David Bieler, “Is PAYGO a No-Go?” (Mercatus on Policy, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, April 2010).
xi] Jerry Brito, “The BRAC Model for Spending Reform” (Mercatus on Policy, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, February 2010).
[xii] Veronique de Rugy, “The Effect of Tax Increases and Spending Cuts on Economic Growth” (Testimony before the Senate Committee on the Budget, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, May 22, 2013).
[xiii] Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven, “War Between Generations: Federal Spending on the Elderly Set to Explode” (Policy Analysis No. 488, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, September 16, 2003).
[xiv] Robert Graboyes, “Fortress and Frontier in American Health Care” (Mercatus Research, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, October 2014).
[xv] Jason J. Fichtner and Veronique de Rugy, “The Debt Ceiling: What Is at Stake?” (Mercatus Research, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, April 2011).
[xvi] Veronique de Rugy and Jason J. Fichtner, “The Debt Limit Debate” (Mercatus on Policy, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, May 2011).
[xvii] Fichtner and de Rugy, “The Debt Ceiling: What Is at Stake?”
[xviii] The Social Security Trust Funds can only be used to pay Social Security benefits. See Glenn Kessler, “Can President Obama Keep Paying Social Security Benefits Even If the Debt Ceiling Is Reached?,” Washington Post, July 13, 2011; Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121 (1996).
[xix] US Government Accountability Office, Letter to Senator Bob Packwood, October 9, 1985.
[xx] Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Letter to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, OIG-CA-12-006, August 24, 2012.
[xxi] Fichtner and de Rugy, “The Debt Ceiling: What Is at Stake?”
[xxii] Jason J. Fichtner and Veronique de Rugy, “The Debt Ceiling: Assets Available to Prevent Default” (Mercatus Research, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, January 2013).
[xxiii] Department of the Treasury, “Daily Treasury Statement,” January 14, 2013.
[xxiv] Department of the Treasury, 2012 Financial Report of the US Government, 65. At the time, the Treasury owned approximately 261.4 million ounces of gold and marked the value of its gold holdings at $42 per ounce, giving a reported value of $11.1 billion. At a spot market price of $1,500 per ounce, Treasury’s gold holdings could be valued near $400 billion.
[xxv] Department of the Treasury, “Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States,” December 31, 2015.
[xxvi] In September 1985, the Treasury took the step of disinvesting the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund, the Social Security Trust Funds, and several smaller trust funds.
I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORESPONDENT WITH WALTER WILLIAMS AND I LEARNED MUCH FROM HIM AND HE IS RIGHT THAT CONGRESS IS GOING AGAINST JAMES MADISON’S WARNING:
The largest threat to our prosperity is government spending that far exceeds the authority enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Federal spending in 2017 will top $4 trillion. Social Security, at $1 trillion, will take up most of it. Medicare ($582 billion) and Medicaid ($404 billion) are the next-largest expenditures. Other federal social spending includes food stamps, unemployment compensation, child nutrition, child tax credits, supplemental security income and student loans, all of which total roughly $550 billion. Social spending by Congress consumes about two-thirds of the federal budget.
Where do you think Congress gets the resources for such spending? It’s not the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. The only way Congress can give one American a dollar is to use threats, intimidation and coercion to confiscate that dollar from another American. Congress forcibly uses one American to serve the purposes of another American. We might ask ourselves: What standard of morality justifies the forcible use of one American to serve the purposes of another American? By the way, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is a fairly good working definition of slavery.
Today’s Americans have little appreciation for how their values reflect a contempt for those of our Founding Fathers. You ask, “Williams, what do you mean by such a statement?” In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees who had fled from insurrection in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti). James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Most federal spending today is on “objects of benevolence.” Madison also said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
No doubt some congressmen, academics, hustlers and ignorant people will argue that the general welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution authorizes today’s spending. That is simply unadulterated nonsense. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Congress (has) not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but (is) restrained to those specifically enumerated.” Madison wrote that “if Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.” In other words, the general welfare clause authorized Congress to spend money only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the infinite needs of the general welfare.
We cannot blame politicians for the spending that places our nation in peril. Politicians are doing precisely what the American people elect them to office to do — namely, use the power of their office to take the rightful property of other Americans and deliver it to them. It would be political suicide for a president or a congressman to argue as Madison did that Congress has no right to expend “on objects of benevolence” the money of its constituents and that “charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” It’s unreasonable of us to expect any politician to sabotage his career by living up to his oath of office to uphold and defend our Constitution. That means that if we are to save our nation from the economic and social chaos that awaits us, we the people must have a moral reawakening and eschew what is no less than legalized theft, the taking from one American for the benefit of another.
I know that some people will say, “Williams, I agree with most of what you say, but not when it comes to Social Security. Social Security is my money I had taken out of my pay for retirement.” If you think that, you’ve been duped. The only way you get a Social Security check is for Congress to take the earnings of a worker. Explanation of your duping can be found on my website, in a 2010 article I wrote titled “Washington’s Lies.”
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, everettehatcher@gmail.com,
Graham Warns Senators: ‘If You’re Wondering Why There’s A Donald Trump,
Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute, Debt Ceiling
“Raise the Debt Ceiling” rap goes viral
Daniel J. Mitchell – USA: Drowning In Debt?
The problem in Washington is not lack of revenue but our lack of spending restraint. This video below makes that point. WASHINGTON IS A SPENDING ADDICT!!!
——-
—
I HAVE WRITTEN REPUBLICAN SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT RAISING THE DEBT CEILING FOR OVER AN DECADE NOW!!!! WHY DO THEY CONTINUE TO DO SO EVEN THOUGH THEY ALL SAY THEY ARE AGAINST BORROWING 40% OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS? Look at some of these previous letters below:
The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Capito,
On September 16, 2021 my post “46 REPUBLICAN SENATORS VOW NOT TO HELP DEMOCRATS RAISE THE DEBT CEILING (HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!!!)” and you were one of the 46 Senators who pledged not to raise the debt ceiling but you folded like a wet leaf just like I predicted:
I have written before about those heroes of mine that have resisted raising the debt ceiling but in the end I have always been disappointed and here we go again!
But first let me give you a taste of something I wrote about 10 years ago on this same issue!
Why don’t the Republicans just vote no on the next increase to the debt ceiling limit. I have praised over and over and overthe 66 House Republicans that voted no on that before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly. I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.
What would happen if the debt ceiling was not increased? Yes President Obama would probably cancel White House tours and he would try to stop mail service or something else to get on our nerves but that is what the Republicans need to do.
I have written and emailed Senator Pryor over, and over again with spending cut suggestions but he has ignored all of these good ideas in favor of keeping the printing presses going as we plunge our future generations further in debt. I am convinced if he does not change his liberal voting record that he will no longer be our senator in 2014.
I have written hundreds of letters and emails to President Obama and I must say that I have been impressed that he has had the White House staff answer so many of my letters. The White House answered concerning Social Security (two times), Green Technologies, welfare, small businesses, Obamacare (twice), federal overspending, expanding unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, gun control, national debt, abortion, jumpstarting the economy, and various other issues. However, his policies have not changed, and by the way the White House after answering over 50 of my letters before November of 2012 has not answered one since. President Obama is committed to cutting nothing from the budget that I can tell.
I have praised over and over and over the 66 House Republicans that voted no on that before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly. I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.
46 Republican Senators Vow Not to Help Democrats Raise the Debt Ceiling
All but four Republican senators have signed a pledge that they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling, sending another warning to Democrats that they are on their own on the pressing issue.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) circulated a letter during the chamber’s vote-a-rama on the $3.5 trillion budget resolution Wednesday, signing up a majority of his fellow Republicans in an effort to link the Democrats’ proposed spending package with the statutory debt limit imposed on the federal government by Congress, which covers spending that has already been approved and must be paid by the U.S. Treasury.
In the letter, which is addressed to “Our Fellow Americans,” the Republican signatories claim that Democrats are responsible for increased federal spending and so must be responsible for raising the debt limit. “We will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, whether that increase comes through a stand-alone bill, a continuing resolution, or any other vehicle,” the letter says. “Democrats, at any time, have the power through reconciliation to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, and they should not be allowed to pretend otherwise.”
The Republicans who didn’t sign the letter are Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Richard Shelby of Alabama.
Why now: A two-year suspension of the debt ceiling expired at the end of July, forcing the U.S. Treasury to begin taking “extraordinary measures” to keep paying its bills as it waits for Congress to either raise or suspend the limit before the country is forced to default. Democrats opted not to include an increase in the debt ceiling in their budget resolution, which would have made it possible to raise the limit without Republican support, though they still have the option of revising the resolution to include such a provision.
What Democrats say: Democrats point out that much of the increased debt in recent years was produced during former President Trump’s administration. “I cannot believe that Republicans would let the country default,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Wednesday. “It has always been bipartisan to deal with the debt ceiling. When Trump was president I believe the Democrats joined with him to raise it three times.”
President Biden told reporters Wednesday that trillions in debt were added “on the Republicans’ watch” but said he was confident that the GOP would act in time. “They are not going to let us default,” he said.
The bottom line: No one expects Congress to allow the U.S. to default, but it looks like we could be in for a high-stakes game of chicken in the coming weeks — and the markets are starting to notice. According to Reuters Wednesday, “Some U.S. Treasury bill yields are beginning to reflect concerns that lawmakers may wait until the last minute to increase or suspend the debt ceiling.”
Will you stand up against the Democrats in the future and make the Government ONLY SPEND WHAT IT BRINGS IN? We are becoming an entitlement society and we must stop this trend!!!!
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org cell 501-920-5733
PS: In 2010 we had a group of conservatives get elected in the House and many of them stood up to President Obama when he wanted to raise the debt limit and I praised these 66 heroes of mine on my blog in 2011 and Representative Andy Harris of Maryland was one of those. Here is what I wrote about him:
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 37)
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.
August 1, 2011
Rep. Harris Votes Against the Debt Ceiling “Deal”
Washington, DC – Today, Rep. Andy Harris voted against the debt ceiling increase. The plan did not require passage of a balanced budget amendment, which Rep. Harris feels is essential to bringing permanent common sense accountability to Washington.
“A balanced budget amendment is the only way to make sure the federal government spends what it takes in and lives within its means,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “Over the past few weeks I have repeatedly voted for reasonable proposals to raise the debt ceiling that included passage of a balanced budget amendment. But I didn’t come to Washington to continue writing blank checks. Maryland’s families and job creators sent me to Congress to permanently change the way Washington does business. I appreciate Speaker Boehner’s remarkable, historic efforts to craft a proposal to solve the debt ceiling issue. But today’s debt ceiling deal just doesn’t go far enough to build an environment for job creation by requiring passage of a balanced budget amendment to bring permanent common sense accountability to Washington.”
Currently, the U.S. Government has a national debt of $14.3 trillion and runs an annual deficit of $1.65 trillion.
Andrew Peter Harris (born January 25, 1957) is an American politician and physician who has been the U.S. Representative for Maryland’s 1st congressional district since 2011. The district includes the entire Eastern Shore, as well as several eastern exurbs of Baltimore. He is currently the only Republicanmember of Maryland’s congressional delegation. Harris previously served in the Maryland Senate.
|
Andy Harris
|
|
|---|---|
.jpg) |
|
| Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Maryland‘s 1st district |
|
| Assumed office January 3, 2011 |
|
| Preceded by | Frank Kratovil |
| Member of the Maryland Senate | |
| In office 1999 – January 3, 2011 |
|
| Preceded by | Vernon Boozer (9th) Norman Stone (7th) |
| Succeeded by | Robert Kittleman (9th) J.B. Jennings (7th) |
| Constituency | 9th district (1999–2003) 7th district (2003–2011) |
Related posts:
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 47)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 47) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 46)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 46) 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, […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 45)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 45) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 44)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 44) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 43)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 43) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 42)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 42) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 41)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 41) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 40)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 40) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 39)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 39) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 38)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 38) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 37)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 37) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 36)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 36) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 35)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 35) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 34)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 34) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 33)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 33) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 32)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 32) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 31)
Congressmen Tim Huelskamp on the debt ceiling Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 31) 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 […]
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 30)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 30) 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 […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 29)
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 29) 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 […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 28)
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 28) 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, […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 27)
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 27) 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, […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 26)
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 26) 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, […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25)
Uploaded by RepJoeWalsh on Jun 14, 2011 Our country’s debt continues to grow — it’s eating away at the American Dream. We need to make real cuts now. We need Cut, Cap, and Balance. The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25) This post today is a part of a series […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 23)
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 23) 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, […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 22)
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 22) 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, […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 21)
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, […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 20)
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, […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 19)
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 19) 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, […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 18)
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 18) 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, […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 17)
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 17) 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, […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 16)
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 16) 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, […]
The Daily Hatch 