Category Archives: spending out of control

Pryor voted for Stimulus earlier but now he is concerned about our deficit

August 25, 2011 – 8:21 am

David Pryor praises Obama

_________________________

Thanks to the Arkansas Times Blog and to Arkansas Media Watch for pointing out what Senator Pryor said in his recent visit to Rogers, Arkansas:

Getting the economy on track will require deep cuts to the federal budget and a fairer tax system, Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said Tuesday.

National defense, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid will account for more than 60 percent of federal spending in 2012, according to pie charts he displayed. Spending in those areas will have to be reduced along with cuts to other programs if Congress hopes to get the budget under control, he said.

“Everybody’s going to get cut,” Pryor said. “We’ve been living beyond our means.”

The two-term senator spoke at a Rogers Rotary Club luncheon in the John Q. Hammons Center.

Pryor said various tax breaks have created a system in which 45 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.

“It’s hard to have a fair tax system where only about half the people are paying,” he said.

It is funny to me that Mark Pryor has been one of the biggest spenders in the U.S. Senate history with all his votes with Obama in favor of an almost 800 billion stimulus and a government overall of our healthcare system, but Pryor now wants to talk like a conservative.

I read this letter below from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on August 13,  2011:

Time to stop insanity

The president has told us for 2 1/2 years that he is focusing “like a laser” on jobs. Well, looks like it’s time to replace this “Jobs Guy” with someone who has actually had some experience running something. We have given him a chance. Yes, he reads a pretty mean TelePrompTer, but his cockamamie Keynesian economic theory that only works in the ivory towers of academia has proved itself wrong again. We have lost a net 2.5 million jobs since his inauguration, and the few jobs the Obama administration has created have cost the American taxpayer about $250,000 each, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And how about his explodingthe national debt? To all the happy parents who have just welcomed their new baby into our world, here is the bad news: Your baby’s share of the national debt is $46,156.05 as of August 2 and is still climbing. Both Republican and Democratic politicians are responsible for our national debt, which now tops $14.3 trillion.

In the recent debate regarding raising the debt ceiling, the only grownups in the room were the Tea Party congressmen who tried to force a vote on a constitutional amendment to require the federal government to balance its budget like every state and city in the land is required to do. In the 2012 election, I suspect the Tea Party of Republicans, independents and Democrats will finally demand that politicians stop this insanity. God help us if they don’t.

RALPH C. PATTERSON Bella Vista

Mark Pryor has supported about every bill that President Obama has pushed. The stimulus was probably the biggest budget busting bill so far. Did that help get our economy going? Not according to Kathy Fettke:

President Obama is urging Congress to raise the $14.3T debt ceiling or else, he warns, the U.S. would be forced to default. Perhaps our representatives need a little lesson on good debt vs. bad debt.

Good debt gives the borrower the potential to create more money. Bad debt gives the borrower something he can’t afford but wants anyway.

In real estate, for example, good debt might be a loan used to purchase an investment property. The borrower acquires an asset that creates income. That income is used to pay off the debt. The borrower then owns an asset free & clear that continues to produce income, long after the original debt is gone.

Bad debt serves a need for instant gratification by borrowing income from the future.

An example of bad debt is getting a loan to purchase a new car. The car is worth less the moment it’s driven off the lot. From day 1, the borrower owes more than the car is worth, and the “asset” doesn’t create monthly income. It becomes a liability, unless it is used as a rental, trucking or any other profitable business use.

Is Obama asking for more good debt or more bad debt?

Politicians are expert wordsmiths who can spin facts into a slick campaigns designed for getting what they want. That’s why President Obama and the money magicians at the Federal Reserve are preaching that more debt would help the economy.

Has their plan worked so far? Let’s take a look:

During the past 5 years, the federal government has borrowed 4.5 trillion dollars to stimulate the economy. That’s a 40% increase in government debt! 

Did the stimulus work?

Political spin doctors say it did, claiming that US GDP climbed 1.9% in Q1 of 2011. But how much did that increase cost us?

We spent $4.5 Trillion over 5 years to create $690 Billion in GDP growth.  Doing the math, that means the US will receive 14 cents for every dollar of debt incurred to stimulate the economy.

With losses like this, the “stimulus” plan is really a bad debt deal – one in which borrowing results in more liabilities, not assets. And now our leaders are trying to talk us into more of it.

Just say “NO!” to raising the debt ceiling! It’s not just bad debt, it’s ugly debt.

The cure for bad debt is pretty simple and boring: cut spending and increase income. If you can’t do either, you default.

Borrowing just to keep up with interest payments and avoid default is reckless and only exacerbates the problem. It does not fix it.

Politicians must agree to cut spending. And they must avoid increasing income through taxation. As much as the general population would love to rob the rich, that method doesn’t work. Business owners who get punished for making money will stop producing and hiring.

Instead of taxing productive businesses to extended ugly government debt, offer businesses good debt so they can continue to grow.

Members of our society with solid business plans should be the ones borrowing – not the government.

Kathy Fettke is CEO of www.RealWealthNetwork.com, an educational resource for new and experienced real estate investors.

Dustin McDaniel praises Obama (says Bill Clinton knew what hard decisions had to be made to balance the budget)

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Taxes | Tagged , , , , | Comments (1)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 22)

August 25, 2011 – 7:45 am

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, 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.

Labrador Statement on Budget Control Act

Aug 1, 2011 Issues: Budget and Spending
 
 
 

Washington, D.C.—Idaho First District Congressman Raúl R. Labrador today issued the following statement following the passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011.

“The debt ceiling agreement that was considered by Congress today represents a good plan to resolve the uncertainty surrounding the debt ceiling debate.  It immediately cuts federal spending and implements new spending caps to prevent government expansion when our economy begins to recover.  While this bill has the potential to reduce the size of our budget and the trajectory of government spending, this bill doesn’t go far enough to make the changes necessary to get us out of our fiscal mess.

“I promised my constituents that I would come to Congress to fundamentally change the way the federal government operates. While this legislation is a good first step towards that goal, it also relies on the time honored Washington tradition of delegating problems to commissions instead of solving them ourselves. It places more confidence in its Super Commission than is warranted.  The legislation also lacks a rock solid commitment to passage of a balanced budget amendment, which I believe is necessary to saving our nation. With the help of the new members of Congress, the standard operating procedure in Washington has begun to change from spending recklessly to cutting spending sensibly, but there is a lot more that needs to change.  ”

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (Part 4 Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

August 25, 2011 – 12:56 am

Dear Senator Pryor,

Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

In this paper below you will read:

America cannot raise taxes to continue overspending, because tax hikes shrink our economy and grow our government. America cannot borrow more to continue overspending, because borrowing puts an enormous financial burden on the American children of tomorrow. A BBA will help address this long-term problem because, after the multi-year process for securing ratification of the BBA by three-quarters of the states, the BBA will keep federal spending under control in subsequent years.

Washington has not been able to cut spending so the BBA is needed to force Washington to do the right thing. Your father David Pryor was the governor of Arkansas and he knew what it meant to have a balanced budget by mandate.

Thank you again for this opportunity to share my ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Balanced Budget Amendment: Cut Spending Later, Cut Spending Now

March 31, 2011

 

Two key principles should govern congressional consideration of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires the federal government to balance its budget:

  • First Principle: A Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) is important to help bring long-term fiscal responsibility to America’s future when the BBA takes effect after ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures; it is equally important for Congress to cut spending nowto address the current overspending crisis.
  • Second Principle: An effective BBA will include three elements to: (a) control spending, taxation, and borrowing, (b) ensure the defense of America, and (c) enforce the requirement to balance the budget.

Cuts for the Future, Cuts for the Present

Federal spending is out of control—both obligations for the future and spending right now.

Congress must get spending under control in the long term. America cannot raise taxes to continue overspending, because tax hikes shrink our economy and grow our government. America cannot borrow more to continue overspending, because borrowing puts an enormous financial burden on the American children of tomorrow. A BBA will help address this long-term problem because, after the multi-year process for securing ratification of the BBA by three-quarters of the states, the BBA will keep federal spending under control in subsequent years.

Congress also must get spending under control in the short term. Federal overspending is not simply about the future, but also about the present. Under the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Submission, measured by the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government will spend $1.2 trillion more than it will take in, a gargantuan burden of additional debt forced on future generations to pay current bills.

Thus, America needs both a Balanced Budget Amendment for the long term and deep cuts in federal spending starting right now, without waiting for a BBA to take effect. As Congress considers budget resolutions, appropriations bills, appropriations continuing resolutions, and debt limit bills, Congress should take every opportunity now to cut federal spending, including for the biggest overspending problem: the ever-growing entitlement programs.

Congress should recognize that the best way to encourage state legislatures to ratify a BBA is to demonstrate, through consistent congressional cuts in spending, that the American people have the will to accept spending cuts to balance the budget.

Elements of a Successful Balanced Budget Amendment

A successful BBA will:

  • Control spending, taxing, and borrowing through a requirement to balance the budget.The BBA should cap annual spending at a level not exceeding either: (a) a specified percentage of the value of goods and services the economy produces in a year (known as gross domestic product, or GDP), or (b) the level of revenues. To ensure that Congress cannot simply balance the budget by continually raising taxes instead of cutting overspending, the BBA should require Congress to act by supermajority votes if Members wish to raise taxes. Any authority the BBA grants Congress to deal with economic slowdowns, by waiving temporarily the requirement that spending not exceed the GDP percentage or revenue level, should specify the amount of above-revenue spending allowed and require supermajority votes.
  • Defend America. The BBA should allow Congress by supermajority votes to waive temporarily compliance with the balanced budget requirement when waiver is essential to pay for the defense of Americans from attack.
  • Enforce the balanced budget requirement. The BBA should provide for its own enforcement, but must specifically exclude courts from any enforcement of the BBA, so unelected judges do not make policy decisions such as determining the appropriate level of funding for federal programs. A government that spends money in excess of its revenues must borrow to cover the difference. Therefore, to enforce the requirement to balance the budget, the BBA should prohibit government issuance of debt, except when necessary to finance a temporary deficit resulting from congressional supermajority votes discussed above.

America is in a fiscal crisis. Our government spends too much. Overspending must stop immediately. Overspending will stop only if Congress cuts spending now, including with respect to the ever-expanding entitlement programs. For the future, Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures can adopt and ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to anchor the American willingness to live within a balanced budget.

David S. Addington is Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy, and J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

2nd stimulus is a bad idea

August 24, 2011 – 9:16 pm

Over and over you hear about political leaders saying that we must spend our way out of this recession, but that does not work. Below is an excellent article on this:

Is Obama Really Going to Propose Another Keynesian Stimulus?

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Just last week, I made fun of Paul Krugman after he publicly said that a fake threat from invading aliens would be good for the economy since the earth would waste a bunch of money on pointless defense outlays.

Yesterday, there were rumors that Krugman stated that it would have been stimulative if the earthquake had been stronger and done more damage, but he exposed this as a prank(though it is understandable that many people — including me, I’m embarrassed to admit — initially assumed it was true since he did write that the 9-11 terrorist attacks boosted growth).

 But while Krugman is owed an apology by whoever pulled that stunt, the real problem is that President Obama and his advisers actually take Keynesian alchemy seriously.

And since President Obama is promising to unveil another “jobs plan” after his vacation, that almost certainly means more faux stimulus.

We don’t know what will be in this new package, but there are rumors of an infrastructure bank, which doubtlessly would be a subsidy for state and local governments. The only thing “shovel ready” about this proposal is that tax dollars will be shoveled to interest groups.

The other idea that seems to have traction is extending the current payroll tax holiday, which lowers the “employee share” of the payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. The good news is that the tax holiday doesn’t increase the burden of government spending. The bad news is that temporary tax rate reductions probably have very little positive effect on economic output.

Lower tax rates are the right approach, to be sure (particularly compared to useless rebates, such as those pushed by the Bush White House in 2001 and 2008), but workers, investors, and entrepreneurs are unlikely to be strongly incentivized by something that might be seen as a one-year gimmick. Though I suppose if the holiday keeps getting extended, people may begin to think it is a semi-durable feature of the tax code, so maybe there will be some pro-growth impact.

In any event, we will see what the President unveils next month. I’ll be particularly interested in how his supposed short-run jobs proposal fits in with his long-run plan for dealing with red ink. He has been advocating for a “balanced approach” and “shared sacrifice” – but that’sObama-speak for higher taxes, and we know that’s a damper on job creation and new investment.

As you can tell, I’m not optimistic. The best thing for growth would be to get the government out of the way. The Obama White House, though, thinks bigger government is good for the economy.

This stimulus video was produced last year and was designed for another jobs plan concocted by the Administration, but the message is still very appropriate.

Daniel J. Mitchell • August 24, 2011 @ 10:44 am
Filed under: General; Government and Politics; Tax and Budget Policy

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Liberals like Krugman and Brantley want another stimulus

August 24, 2011 – 12:50 pm

Max Brantley posted on the Arkansas Times Blog the words of Paul Krugman, “As the stimulus has faded out, so have hopes of strong economic recovery…” (Arkansas Times Blog, June 3, 2011).

The video clip above by Dan Mitchell goes over some of the past attempted stimulus plans as does the article below. Every stimulus plan in the history of man has failed but we keep on TRYING TO MOVE MONEY FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND SOMEHOW WE THINK IT WILL NEXT TIME. IT ALWAYS FAILS.

Stay on Vacation

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on August 24, 2011

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on August 24, 2011.

As the economy continues to teeter on the precipice of a double-dip recession, there is a growing demand for the president and Congress to rush back from their vacations and do something. But why?

What is it that we really think the president can do?

While the president’s latest economic plan remains a deeply held secret until after his vacation, pretty much everyone in Washington expects him to call for … drumroll please … a stimulus plan.

Now why haven’t we thought of that before? Oh, that’s right. We have.

We’re not the first country to rely on this stale brew of Keynesian economics.

In fact, we have now had at least five — or is it six? — stimulus plans since this recession started.

The first of these came back in February 2008 under the Bush administration: a $152 billion measure, featuring a $600 tax rebate, several incentives for businesses, and loan guarantees for the housing industry. Then, as the recession picked up steam in September 2008, Congress passed the $61 billion Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008. This bill pumped money into federal “infrastructure projects” and extended unemployment insurance.

And of course, immediately after taking office, President Obama pushed through the giant $787 billion stimulus. He followed that up with an additional $26 billion bill in August of 2010, aimed at helping states retain teachers and make Medicaid payments. On top of that, in September 2010, Congress created a $30 billion fund to provide small businesses with low-interest loans. Finally, the December compromise that extended the Bush tax cuts included another extension of unemployment benefits and a reduction in the Social Security payroll tax, both heralded at the time as stimulus measures.

We’re not the first country to rely on this stale brew of Keynesian economics. When Japan’s asset bubble collapsed in the late 1980s, its economy went into freefall. In response, Japan pursued three major fiscal-stimulus packages, totaling 6 percent of GDP, between August 1992 and September 1993. When those failed, Japan tried still more stimulus, a total of eight different packages over eight years. The Japanese government has spent $6.3 trillion on construction-related projects alone. It also increased subsidies and social-welfare payments.

Japan began the 1990s with a budget surplus. A decade later it had a budget deficit equal to 7.9 percent of GDP. Today, its budget deficit is 8.3 percent, and its debt exceeds 200 percent of GDP. The result has been minimal economic growth. For all this spending, Japan’s industrial production in 2008 was only 2.9 percent larger than it had been in 1991. Over the past decade, Japan’s economy has grown by less than a quarter of one percent.

Now President Obama prepares to call for another extension of unemployment benefits, more infrastructure spending, and an extension of the payroll-tax cut.

The real drags on our economy have nothing to do with the failure of government to spend enough. The federal government is now spending roughly 24 percent of GDP. State and local governments are spending another 10 to 15 percent, meaning government at all levels is spending around 40 percent of GDP. If government spending brought about prosperity, we should be experiencing a golden age.

The reasons we are not growing are simple and clear:

Debt: Several studies show that high levels of government debt slow economic growth. The seminal study by Carmen Reinhardt of the University of Maryland and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard concluded that countries with a debt totaling more than 90 percent of GDP have median growth rates 1 percent lower than countries with a lower debt, and average growth rates nearly 4 percent lower. Our national debt now tops 102 percent of GDP.

Taxes: Businesses are forward-looking. They hear the president and congressional Democrats calling for tax hikes, and they become worried about taking the risks inherent in investing, expanding, and hiring. Even if the president doesn’t sock them with any new taxes, they are facing some $569 billion in new taxes by the end of the decade as a result of Obamacare. And virtually everyone acknowledges that our corporate tax rates, the second highest in the developed world, are putting American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Regulation: Obamacare is coming, including a mandate for businesses to provide workers with health insurance. Making hiring more expensive is not an inducement to increased employment. The EPA is planning new carbon-emission regulations. The NLRB is telling Boeing where to locate its plants. This is not a pro-jobs agenda.

Here’s a different idea. More than two centuries ago, Adam Smith wrote that “little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice.”

President Obama could try that approach — and he wouldn’t even have to come back from vacation.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

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

August 24, 2011 – 7:37 am

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

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

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

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

 

Westmoreland Opposes Debt Ceiling Increase

 
 
Feel Free To Share This Page

Slashdot
Del.icio.us
Google
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Yahoo
Facebook
 

Washington, Aug 1 –

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

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

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

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

National Debt will continue to skyrocket unless something is done about entitlements

August 23, 2011 – 6:47 pm

National Debt Set to Skyrocket

Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.

In the past, wars and the Great Depression contributed to rapid but temporary increases in the national debt. Over the next few decades, runaway spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will drive the debt to unsustainable levels.

PERCENTAGE OF GDP

 
 
 
 
Download

National Debt Set to Skyrocket

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on data from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Institute for the Measurement of Worth, Congressional Budget Office, and White House Office of Management and Budget.

Chart 20 of 42

In Depth

  • Policy Papers for Researchers

  • Technical Notes

    The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More

  • Authors

    Emily GoffResearch Assistant
    Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
    Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor

By Everette Hatcher III | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

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

August 23, 2011 – 7:25 am

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

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

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

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

Scott Austin of Georgia:

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

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

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 19)

August 22, 2011 – 7:15 am

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, 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.

 

Related Documents

AUDIO: Kingston Opposes Debt Limit Increase

 
 
Washington, Aug 1-Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) released the following statement after casting his vote against a proposal to increase the nation’s statutory debt limit

“I commend the Speaker for fighting the good fight.  We moved the debate from tax increases to spending caps and matched each dollar of debt limit increase to more than a dollar of spending cuts.  But as far as we came, the deck was stacked against us.  Controlling one-half of one-third of government limits the ability of small government conservatives to change the direction of our country overnight.

It is clear America has a long struggle ahead of her as we continue to rein in spending and get our fiscal house in order.  I intend to continue the fight and work for the reforms and spending cuts we need so badly in America.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

The Tea Party is watching the votes of this Congress

August 22, 2011 – 6:46 am

Ernest Istook, US Congressman, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org, spoke at the Saint Paul Tea Party Rally 4/16/2011. Hosted by North Star Tea Party Patriots, and Sue Jeffers.

_____________________________

Being in Boston this week and walking the Freedom Trail  was a great experience. Lots of the information the tour guides gave was about Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty that put together the Boston Tea Party. What would they think of this congress today?

File:J S Copley - Samuel Adams.jpg

Here is list of the notable members of the Sons of Liberty according to Wikipedia:

I got to hear Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation speak in Little Rock a while back and I wrote about it on this blog. Mr. Istook is a Tea Party favorite speaker and the Heritage Foundation website (www.Heritage.org) is one of my favorite website. I am so glad that Heritage Action is grading the members of Congress on their votes. See below this article that came out today:

Mike Needham

Sneak Peak: A Tough Conservative Scorecard

Mike Needham

With every vote cast in Congress, freedom either advances or recedes. From reckless spending and stifling regulations to Obamacare, Americans see their freedoms – and those of their children and grandchildren – slipping away. We went to the polls last November to turn the tide. And while conservatives are winning the day on the message, the policy is lagging.

Later this week, Heritage Action will release our first legislative scorecard, which will show which Members of Congress are saying the right things AND doing the right things. Conversely, those who say one thing and do another will no longer be able to hide. This will be a revealing barometer of a lawmaker’s willingness to fight for principled conservative policies in Congress.

Allow me to pull back the curtain just a bit.

No single Senator or Representative achieved a perfect score – something that is practically unheard of in the world of Congressional scorecards, but reflects the fact that there is no perfect politician in Washington. The average in the Democrat-controlled Senate was 39%. Liberal politicians in the House bring the average down to 42% in the GOP-controlled chamber.

While the House has done many big things right this year – the bold House budget, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, and Obamacare repeal, for example – conservatives still had too many losses with moderate Republicans teaming up with Democrats to defeat good legislation. As a result, the GOP average in the House is only 67%. Senate Republicans did better with a 76% average, though they have not yet voted on the often revealing appropriations bills. In all, 13 Senators and 27 Representatives scored an 85% or higher.

Like I told the crowd at the RedState.com Gathering a couple weeks ago, we are tough graders and don’t apologize for it. After all, we are conservatives, not tenured university professors.

And if there is one thing conservatives need, especially in Washington, it is unapologetic champions. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, one such champion, is “thrilled” about the scorecard. She said, “it is time now that we look at the spending habits of our legislators. It’s time that we look at what they’re doing with debt. It’s time that we look at how they’re spending taxpayer money.”

When the federal government engages in the sort of reckless spending that has come to define the previous decade, freedom recedes as the power and scope of the federal government expands. America’s future – and the economic freedom of our children and grandchildren – diminishes.

Heritage Action’s scorecard encompasses 30 votes and five co-sponsorship scores in the House and 19 votes and four co-sponsorship scores in the Senate. The votes cover the full spectrum of conservatism, and include legislative action on issues both large and small.

There is a tendency among some lawmakers to do the right thing on the big issues – repeal of Obamacare, for example – and then revert to “big government conservatism” on the small issues when they think no one is looking.

For example, 105 House Republicans joined every Democrat in voting against an amendment by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) which would have cut $3 billion from Interior-Environment appropriations. In the Senate, 15 Republicans joined every Democrat in killing an amendment that would have repealed the non-essential Essential Air Services. These two votes are illustrative of the challenges conservatives face in Congress.

Our task is daunting, but not impossible. After a long hard fight, conservatives won the day on earmarks. Now, we must lead the fight against small bills that expand the size and scope of government. Legislation like the NAT GAS Act (HR1380) and extension of trade adjustment assistance’s welfare-style benefits must be made as politically toxic as earmarks.

Highlighting these small votes, as well as holding the line on contentious issues like the near-blank check debt ceiling increase, has ruffled some Establishment feathers. According to the Weekly Standard, Members of Congress are taking note:

[Heritage Action’s] newfound influence in politics—not just policy—has rankled a few Republicans otherwise in good conservative standing, especially since Heritage Action announced it would be scoring certain votes.

Heritage Action does not do electoral politics, but we certainly do policy politics. With all the economic indicators pointing towards anemic economic growth, if not another recession, Americans are looking for principled leadership that can steer our country off the path of slow decline and towards actual economic growth. The next 15 months are an opportunity to define the future of America – prosperity, or slow decline.

If we’re going to save the American dream for our children and grandchildren, we cannot pull punches or engage in partisan “rah-rah” type actions. Heritage Action’s scorecard will be revealing – and a tool for conservatives outside the beltway to hold their Members of Congress accountable and get America back on track.

Mike Needham

Mike Needham

Mike Needham is the Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Action for America, a grassroots advocacy organization dedicated to advancing legislation that promotes freedom, opportunity and prosperity for all Americans
Related posts:

Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation speaks in Little Rock on 6-22-11 (Part 1)

The third monthly luncheon with featured speaker Ernest Istook was excellent. First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN   who came up with the idea of this luncheon, and then from Teresa Crossland of Americans for Prosperity. Below is a portion of Istook’s biography from the Heritage Foundation:   Ernest Istook Distinguished Fellow Government Studies Ernest […]

Ernest Istook: “it’s time to put away childish things” and tackle deficit, will Senator Mark Pryor do it?

U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 DPA J-J Dinner U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Dinner, Arkansas’s largest annual political event. (Did you notice that besides Mike Ross, EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT THAT PRYOR MENTIONS DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB IN WASHINGTON IS NO LONGER IN OFFICE, SNYDER, LINCOLN, and BERRY)

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events, Taxes | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)