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 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.
Congressman King: “The debt limit deal forfeits the mandate House Republicans received last November to ‘hold the line’ on the nation’s debt and spending.”
Washington D.C.- Congressman Steve King (R-IA) released the following statement after voting against legislation considered by the House this afternoon that provides for an increase in the nation’s debt limit. The legislation, S. 365, represents the terms of a deal negotiated between Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and President Barack Obama (D-IL) to increase the nation’s debt limit.
“Because S.365 represents a retreat from fiscal discipline and from the Balanced Budget Amendment, I voted against it,” said King. “S.365’s proposed spending cuts are far too small, and the fact that they are far into the future calls into question whether they will ever actually occur. The bill increases the nation’s debt burden while placing the responsibility of dealing with Washington’s addiction to debt and deficit spending on yet another commission, and on future Congresses and future Presidents.”
“As part of the final deal, S.365 also makes it more difficult for Congress to send a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification. It waters down the strong and specific Balanced Budget Amendment language contained in the ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ bill. This debt limit deal forfeits the mandate that House Republicans received last November to ‘hold the line’ on the nation’s debt and spending, and I could not support it.
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, 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.
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Marlin Stutzman (IN-03) discussed the upcoming vote to increase the ‘Debt Ceiling’ by $2.4 trillion from $14.29 trillion to $16.7 trillion. H. R. 1954 the bill to ‘implement the President’s request to increase the statutory limit on public debt’ to cover our $1.6 trillion budget shortfall will be voted on later this evening and is expected to fail with both Democrats and Republicans voting against. The bill would fulfill the requests of the Democrat leadership to have a vote on a “clean” bill or a bill that raises the debt ceiling without spending cuts or any other mechanism to control deficits.
“Increasing the ‘debt ceiling’ cannot be discussed in a vacuum.” Stutzman stated “I will vote no for increasing the ‘debt limit’ as the out of control spending of Washington must be curtailed before we even discuss an increase. If Congress cannot come to an agreement on increasing the public debt then Secretary Geithner will have to look into prioritizing our National debt. Prioritizing the ‘debt’ will allow for Social Security, the Military and Veteran’s Affairs to maintain their programs and not affect those that depend on them. The President must come to the table with budget reforms; he doesn’t understand the financial situation the Nation is in. So far only the House has written and passed a budget.”
More information on H.R. 1954 can be found at www.Thomas.gov.
If you looked at the new CBO report on the budget, you may have noticed that federal spending this year will be $3.6 trillion.
In fact, federal spending this year will top $4 trillion. But virtually all reporters and budget wonks (including me) routinely use the lower number when discussing total federal spending. I don’t think the higher $4 trillion number even appears anywhere in the CBO report.
The $3.6 trillion figure is “net” outlays. But “gross” outlays, or total spending, is quite a bit higher. The difference is caused by “offsetting collections” and “offsetting receipts.” These are revenue inflows to the government that are netted against spending at the program level, agency level, or government-wide level. Some examples are national park fees, Medicare premiums, and royalties earned on mineral deposits. There are hundreds of these cash inflows to the government that offset reported spending.
Details on these revenue offsets can be found in Chapter 16 of OMB’s Analytical Perspectives(pdf). In fiscal year 2010, net federal outlays were $3.456 trillion, but gross outlays were $4.057 trillion. Thus, gross outlays were 17 percent larger than widely reported net outlays.
In FY 2011, OMB expects gross outlays to be about 15 percent larger than net outlays. Thus, gross outlays this year will be $4.1 trillion, compared to net outlays of $3.6 trillion. As a share of GDP, gross outlays will be about 27.3 percent of GDP, compared to net outlays of 23.8 percent.
Accounting for offsets in this manner is a long-standing convention, but it is one of the sneaky ways that Washington tries to hide its large intrusion into the economy. Certainly, the CBO and OMB should include more prominent presentations of gross outlays in their regular budget updates.
For citizens and reporters, a rule-of-thumb to remember is that total federal spending is 3 to 4 percentage points of GDP larger than usually reported by officials.
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, 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.
Rep. Todd Rokita voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011 because it fails to implement the long-term permanent and structural reforms necessary to put the nation back on a fiscally sustainable trajectory:
“I have heard a couple different definitions of leadership today. Let me add mine: leadership is effectively persuading others of the proper course of action. It is also about standing up for those who have no voice. For decades now, we have spent too much money on ourselves and have intentionally allowed our kids and grandkids to pay for it. It is intergenerational theft—literally stealing from our best asset, our posterity. The correct course of action, as I have said from the beginning, is to enact permanent and structural reform as the price for raising the debt ceiling. Today’s bill does not do that.
This legislation is a Washington deal, and it barely begins to address our long-term spending problem. Our debt crisis is driven by mandatory spending on entitlement programs and this plan fails to address such spending. Also, this plan only reduces the future debt we will pile on the backs of our kids from $10 trillion to around $7 trillion over the next decade. It does not begin to reduce our $14 trillion in current debt.
However, this legislation could eventually lead to the best permanent solution, a balanced budget amendment. This is certainly worth fighting for and I will lead on that front. But a vote alone is not worth the $2.5 trillion price tag, again to be paid by future generations. For that price, we should have required passage of a balanced budget amendment for state ratification.
I will continue to fight for a balanced budget amendment, lead our nation to live within its means and tackle out-of-control entitlement spending. It will be a long fight, but the enactment of a balanced budget amendment is the only way to fix the broken system that created this mess, both addressing our long-term fiscal health and giving Americans long-term peace of mind.”
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, 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.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Dan Burton (R-IN-05) issued the following statement after the House of Representatives’ approved the deficit reduction deal negotiated with President Obama and Senate Democrats:
“Our nation has never defaulted in its history and we must take action to continue to meet our financial obligations. However, in good conscience I could not support the deficit reduction package worked out this past weekend. I have said repeatedly that Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem and this bill does nothing to change the spending culture ingrained in Washington.
“First, A Balanced Budget Amendment is the ONLY way to finally force Washington to live within its means. However, unlike the Cut, Cap and Balance Act or the Boehner proposal passed by the House of Representatives, the deficit reduction deal does not require a Balanced Budget Amendment be sent to the States for ratification before the President is granted a debt ceiling increase; it merely requires a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. Passing a Balanced Budget Amendment requires a 2/3rds vote in the House and Senate and a majority of Democrats have already expressed opposition to a Balanced Budget Amendment, so obtaining the necessary votes without significant leverage – such as the threat of default – is highly unlikely;
“Second, the deficit reduction deal does not prevent future tax increases or reduce the size of government. In fact, the deficit reduction deal assumes that all the Bush tax cuts expire in December 2012. In other words the additional revenue is already built into the bill which would make it difficult if not impossible to meet the deficit reduction targets AND extend the Bush tax cuts beyond 2012. In addition, the suggestion that it is impossible for the Joint Committee to raise additional tax revenue simply is not accurate, it’s false;
“Third, the automatic spending cuts placed in the deal to force Congress to maintain fiscal discipline are unrealistic and unworkable. Half of the proposed automatic cuts would come from defense programs which will undermine our ability to project power, strengthen our adversaries, and weaken our alliances. Additional automatic cuts will come from Medicare providers; already underpaid by Medicare. Historically Congress has rolled back any proposed cuts to Medicare providers and there is no reason to believe Congress won’t do so again. It is also unrealistic to believe Congress will allow substantial cuts to defense spending while our troops are engaged in three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya);
“Finally, the deficit reduction deal may be unconstitutional. The deficit reduction deal allows the President to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling subject to a resolution of disapproval by the Congress (which the President can veto). The debt limit is a statutory requirement and must therefore be changed by law. ONLY Congress has the power to make law not the President; and Congress cannot, and most importantly should not, surrender this power to the president.
“The American people want a solution to this crisis, not a deal that allows Washington to kick the can down the road once again. Regrettably, the deficit reduction deal is not that solution.”
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 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.
WASHINGTON– Today, Congressman Joe Walsh (IL-08) voted against the latest debt ceiling deal brokered by President Obama and Congressional leaders.
“Last night’s deal shows how far the debate has moved in just a few months,” said Congressman Walsh. “At the beginning of this debate President Obama demanded a blank check increase in the debt limit with no spending cuts attached. When that didn’t work, he insisted on huge tax increases on American families and job creators. The Republican Party, however, stood strong and refused to pay for reckless spending withmoretax increases.”
“While I give my Republican leadership all the credit in the world, I cannot support this latest deal: it spends too much and cuts too little. While this deal will cut $2.4 trillion from the national debt over the next 10 years, Washington will still add another $7 trillion to the national debt over that same period.”
“The fact that there are only $7 billion in cuts next year, an election year, shows how blatantly political this bill is. We need to be slashing reckless spending now and in the future, not just when it is politically convenient for the President.”
“Democrats still don’t get it and refuse to make the spending cuts necessary to avoid a credit downgrade. I have made it clear from day one that I will never vote for an increase in the debt ceiling unless it fundamentally and structurally changes the way Washington spends money. I believe that the way to do that is through statutory spending caps and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.”
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 24)
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.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Timothy V. Johnson issued the following statement today in opposition to the Budget Control Act.
“The legislation falls far short of making the fundamental structural reforms and the fundamental spending reductions necessary to get our nation working again,” Rep. Johnson said.
“Our legislative leaders call it compromise but only in Washington where money isn’t real can it be deemed acceptable to add $2.4 trillion this year to the current $14.3 trillion in debt in exchange for a promise of $2 trillion in cuts over the next decade.
“Leader Boehner is to be commended for changing the course of debate so that we are all now focused on the need to rein in spending and provide certainty to our financial markets. Would that have been the focus before the stimulus package, bailouts and health care changes, perhaps we wouldn’t be facing a debt-ceiling limit.
“Washington’s spendthrift habits are the reason 87 Republicans were swept into the House in 2010. That frustration has not changed. I also find it regrettable that under this new plan, Congress won’t be able to revisit the debt ceiling until 2013.
“We have accumulated $3.5 trillion in new debt under President Obama. Under the Budget Control Act, we’re still spending more than we did last year. And nothing in this bill prevents the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction from reporting legislation to increase taxes. I hope the American people are watching. I fear this kind of compromise will only maintain the status quo.”
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, 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.
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Randy Hultgren (IL-14) released the following statement after voting against the Budget Control Act.
“Tonight, I voted against a flawed bill that doesn’t go far enough,” said Hultgren. “I’ve been clear from the very beginning I would not support any effort to increase our nation’s debt ceiling if the proposal does not hold true to the values of Cut, Cap, and Balance, as well as enact serious structural changes.
“It is my opinion that the proposal approved by the House tonight falls short of what we need to do to put our country back on the right track. By failing to require Congress to approve a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) prior to any further increases in the debt ceiling, this bill does not provide the structural changes that I stated were necessary to earn my support.
“When leadership changed the bill on Thursday night to strengthen the BBA provision, that change earned my support; in failing to keep that strong language, I could not, in good conscience, support this bill.”
I have been saying over and over that the USA is heading to Greece. I will post this story in two different posts. It should show us why the destination of European Welfare State is not a good one even though we are heading there fast under President Obama.
For decades now, one of the most tragic costs of the European welfare state has been Europe’s structural unemployment, especially among the young, combined with welfare payments that turned unemployment into an acceptable—even desirable—status, while stripping those affected of their dignity and sense of responsibility. The recent riots in the U.K. are an ominous reflection of this failure.
One of the key questions now is: How much longer will workers and taxpayers in Germany and other relatively more fiscally prudent countries in northern Europe be willing to work into their late 60s to subsidize (via eurozone bailouts and managed defaults) their neighbors in southern Europe so that the latter can retire early in their 50s on generous state-funded pensions and go to the beach?[3]
The Next Monetary Policy
The euro elites’ response to date has been to try to address the solvency crisis through fiscal policy, and the liquidity crisis through additional debt—ignoring the EU’s monetary policy failure because they have no politically acceptable solution. It is obvious where this will lead, as Heritage Foundation analysis has noted in the past.[4]
Maybe, instead, some of the PIIGS will decide to exit the euro. Or perhaps the northerners will leave the euro (and the euro-denominated sovereign debts of the PIIGS) behind and resuscitate the Deutschmark? One path or the other appears inevitable.
The European social welfare state has contributed mightily to this situation by making all of Europe less competitive relative to the rest of the world, which is why the U.K., though not subject to the monetary policy failure, cannot escape the growth consequences entirely. Meanwhile, Germany’s inherent strengths have allowed it to take advantage of its Euro-linked trading partners.
Lest there be any doubt, the underlying monetary policy failure is the euro. It is now quite clear that this policy was doomed, not solely because Europe failed to harmonize it with other policies, but because monetary union between fast-growth states and slow-growth states can only end in tragic monetary disintegration. The hope that it would cause slow-growth states to catch up was a pipe dream.
Will Europe’s elites succeed in making one more try to save the eurozone, perhaps by creating a central EU treasury that alone has the power to issue new debt for EU countries? This would guarantee that the PIIGS pay lower interest rates than their credit histories would mandate, while the north pays more.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly aims “to seize the Greek crisis to make a quantum leap in eurozone governance.”[5] The recent assertion by Berlin and Paris that a new eurobond is dead on arrival,[6] however, suggests Germany’s patience has just about run out—apparently, that quantum leap will have to be in a different direction.
For the U.S., Europe is the ultimate object lesson—a warning of what happens when government is allowed to run wild, with the resulting loss of liberty and fiscal deficits. Fortunately, though the United States has a single currency, it largely achieved the necessary conditions for such an arrangement to be successful long ago.
Rescuing Europe and Protecting the U.S.
It is almost certain that this crisis will produce something new out of Europe. The emergence, whether collectively or individually, of stronger European societies with durable financial and monetary regimes would certainly be in the best interest of the U.S. and the rest of the world.
As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports in The Telegraph (U.K.),[7] the likely short-term outcome is described by Daniel Gross from the Centre for European Policy Studies: “Germany and the other AAA states must agree to some sort of Eurobond regime. Otherwise the euro will implode.” However, as noted above, France, and especially Germany, have been stoutly opposed to a eurobond, and for very good reasons. Assuming Gross is correct in his assessment, and he most likely is, the future of the euro is bleak indeed.
Meanwhile, spending by the U.S. government—presently on track to consume one-third of the economy by the time today’s newborns graduate from college—must be reduced. Entitlements must be reined in and reformed; non-defense discretionary spending must be rolled back to 2008 levels.
To reduce federal spending and prevent economic collapse, U.S. policymakers should follow The Heritage Foundation’s plan in “Saving the American Dream.”[8]
James M. Robertsis Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth in the Center for International Trade and Economics, and J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
The Tea Party members in the Republican Party voted against the debt deal and have even claimed that the debt deal did not cut enough out of the budget and that is why the USA got a downgrade in the credit rating.
Calls on Geithner to resign followed by reversal of radical agenda
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Washington, DC — Congressman Steve Scalise today released the following statement after the S&P downgraded the US credit rating from AAA to AA+.
“The unprecedented downgrade of the US credit rating is a resounding indictment of President Obama’s failed extreme liberal agenda that has run millions of jobs out of our country due to job-killing taxes, rampant out-of-control government spending, and radical policies like the President’s health care law,” Scalise said. “We cannot allow our nation to keep sinking like quick sand into financial ruin, and we need immediate accountability to correct the damage done by the Obama Administration. Just a few months ago, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner assured Americans that there would be no downgrade, and in light of last night’s announcement it is time for him to do what is best for our country and resign from his post, followed by a reversal of the extreme liberal agenda pursued by President Obama that devastated our once-golden credit rating under his watch.
“The U.S. House of Representatives continues to offer solutions to create American jobs and get our economy back on track, only to have those bills be opposed by the White House and liberals running the Senate. Senate Leader Harry Reid and President Obama must stop playing politics with America’s future if we are going to preserve the American dream and create good jobs.”
Washington, Aug 6 – Iowa Congressman Tom Latham issued the following statement on Saturday following Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating:
“Standard & Poor’s had been attempting to send Washington a wake-up call since April when they changed their outlook on U.S. Treasury securities from “stable” to “negative.” Friday’s credit downgrade is yet another alarm to warn us that our national debt and reckless spending has reached a point of crisis. It reinforces my opposition to the recent debt ceiling agreement as it did not go far enough to put us on true path towards long term fiscal sustainability.”
“Washington must heed this warning and recognize that regardless of political differences, the simple truth is that we have a responsibility as a Congress and as a government to work together to find real solutions to these problems – to put people before politics and progress before partisanship. I am, as I have always been during my service to Iowans, committed and ready to work with any members of the House or Senate, regardless of political affiliation, who are willing to join me to move our country forward on the path to fiscal responsibility to save the American Dream for our children and grandchildren.”
The Daily Hatch 