Category Archives: spending out of control

Democrats lied about spending cuts in 1982 and 1990

August 21, 2011 – 7:53 am

Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict

What kind of intervention does Congress need to get it to spend with its spending addiction? Back in 1982 Reagan was promised $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases but the cuts never came. In 1990 Bush was promised 2 for 1 but they never came either. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR PEOPLE TO REALIZE THAT THE LIBERALS IN CONGRESS ARE ADDICTED TO SPENDING?

June 13, 2011 4:00 A.M.

‘Read My Lips’ Won’t Happen Again
Trading immediate tax hikes for promised spending cuts is a sucker’s bargain.

In 1990, Washington, D.C., was in a panic. The deficit would kill us all. The Japanese (the Chinese of the era) would eat our lunch. Foreign creditors would own America within a decade. Democrats and Republicans in Washington just had to do something, said the mainstream media. Wars, natural-disaster relief, and bailouts were handled without regard to looming entitlement crises. Tax increases were obviously on the table for anyone with half a brain. Sound familiar?

Back then, the solution was practical and obvious to Beltway types, who had been here before in 1982’s TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) tax hike: Democrats would promise future spending cuts in exchange for Republicans’ agreeing to immediate tax increases.

That’s exactly what happened. In October of 1990, Pres. George H. W. Bush agreed to a five-year, $137 billion tax increase. In exchange, Housespeaker Tom Foley (D., Wash.) and Senate majority leader George Mitchell (D., Me.) promised to cut spending by $274 billion over the FY1991–1995 period. In total, this $2-for-$1 deal was supposed to cut the budget deficit by $411 billion over this budget window. Almost three-quarters of the House GOP conference — 126 representatives — voted against their president’s deal, citing the promise they had made to their constituents when they signed the then-new “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” maintained by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. It was not enough. Washington had won, and taxpayers had lost.

The deal turned out to be a disaster for President Bush. By breaking his “read my lips” promise at a summit with Congressional Democrats (famously held at Andrews Air Force Base), he lost his political support and likely the 1992 election. Undoing the seminal Tax Reform Act of 1986, he raised the top marginal income-tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent — and also phased out some deductions and exemptions. He hiked Medicare payroll taxes. He raised excise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, beer, wine, and other common goods. He famously added a 10 percent “luxury tax” on yachts, which had to be repealed three years later since all it served to do was put boat makers out of business, causing layoffs.

These tax hikes became a setup for the 1993 Clinton tax hikes, the cornerstone of which was raising the top individual rate to 39.6 percent, the level President Obama wants to return to after the 2012 elections. In many ways, the conservative movement is still paying the price for Papa Bush’s stupid mistake.

Surely, though, all those spending cuts must have done some good; after all, the deal promised twice as much in spending cuts as it delivered in tax increases. Think again. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected before the deal that 1991–1995 spending would total $7.07 trillion. In fact, total spending for this period was $7.09 trillion. In other words, in return for agreeing to tax hikes, Republicans got $22 billion in extra spending rather than the promised $274 billion in cuts. This was despite the fact that there was another “spending cut” deal in 1993 — the Clinton tax-increase budget.

Sadly, this wasn’t even the first time this happened. Back in 1982, President Reagan agreed to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. Inflation projections make the analysis difficult, but it seems clear (and President Reagan believed) that almost none of the promised spending cuts materialized in real terms.

There is a clear lesson from these budget deals: Tax increases are real — they become law immediately — but promised spending cuts are illusory. There is always an S&L bailout, a Hurricane Andrew, or a Gulf War — or a financial meltdown, a string of tornadoes, and a three-front War on Terror. After a while, the spending-cut promises are forgotten, and all that remains is higher taxes on the American people.

This should be obvious to anyone who knows the history, including thinking Republicans in Washington. For the most part, it is. All but six of the 239 Republican representatives — including Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and the rest of the House GOP leadership — have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, in which they rule out net tax hikes. Even in the more moderate Senate, 40 out of 47 GOP senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), have taken the pledge.

Yet there are several GOP senators who don’t quite get it. Formerly known as the “Gang of Six” (now known as “Five Guys” because Tom Coburn left), this group includes Sens. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Mike Crapo (Idaho) — both pledge signers. The point of this group was to put legislative meat on the bones of President Obama’s “Simpson-Bowles” debt commission. Bragging of at least a $3-to-$1 spending-cuts-to-tax-hikes ratio (sound familiar?), this plan was a ten-year net tax hike of either $1 trillion (the commission estimate), $2 trillion (House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s estimate), or $3 trillion (the Heritage Foundation’s estimate). The political strategy of the Democrats is to get GOP fingerprints on a tax hike, and ultimately to do a repeat of 1982 and 1990 — real tax hikes coupled with spending-cut promises that don’t come to fruition.

Official Washington is shocked that the old playbook isn’t working this time. For all but a few Republican senators, the reason is obvious: “I promised my constituents that I would not raise their taxes, and I’m honoring that promise.” Lucy has pulled the football away from Charlie Brown twice already, but congressional Republicans have finally gotten the message that tax hikes are a sucker’s bet.

— Ryan Ellis is tax-policy director of Americans for Tax Reform.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama, Ronald Reagan | Comments (0)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 18)

August 21, 2011 – 7:06 am

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, 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.

Graves Votes Against Deal To Raise Debt Limit

 
 

Washington, D.C., Aug 1 –

U.S. Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-09) issued the following statement after voting against the deal President Obama and Congressional leaders reached to raise the debt limit:

“America’s call for sweeping change last November set the stage for this great debate over our debt burden.  Washington has pushed its recklessness to the limit and violated the trust of the American people for far too long.  A debt of $14 trillion isn’t an indictment; it’s a conviction.

“Unfortunately, the final deal before us today fails the match the magnitude of the crisis.  In fact, it doesn’t come close.  In exchange for giving President Obama the largest debt limit increase in United States history, the American people receive only $10 billion in savings over the next two years.  The bill does seek out deeper spending cuts in the future, but if we’re to learn anything from history, that promise is bound to be broken.  The fact is, by the end of next year our national debt will be near $17 trillion and will remain a serious threat to our economy. 

“Ultimately, the voices of the Georgians I represent weren’t reflected in the final result, and I could not support the bill.

“Despite the legislation’s many flaws, I do want to commend Speaker Boehner for his hard work and critical victory on the issue of taxes.  By preventing any job-destroying tax hikes from making their way into the deal, the Speaker protected a great many American jobs from being sacrificed for Washington’s bailout.

“I realize this debate has been long and very difficult, but if we intend to change a government as broken as ours, prepare for the road ahead to be even more challenging.  This debate is far from over, and I’ll continue to work toward solving our debt crisis—even if it means going against the grain every time.  We have made progress, and we will continue to fight for a brighter, more prosperous future for America.”

###

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

In One Year, Spending on Interest on the National Debt Is Greater Than Funding for Most Programs

August 20, 2011 – 8:47 pm

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 2010, the U.S. spent more on interest on the national debt than it spent on many federal departments, including Education and Veterans Affairs.

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS (2010)

Download

In One Year, Spending on Interest on the National Debt Is Greater Than Funding for Most Programs

Source: White House Office of Management and Budget.

Chart 29 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 | Comments (0)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 17)

August 20, 2011 – 8:50 am

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, 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.

Monday, August 1, 2011 Contact: Brooke Sammon 202.225.2931
 
 
Washington –Congressman Phil Gingrey (GA-11) today issued the following statement after the passage of S. 365, the bill to provide for an increase in the debt limit.“I commend our leadership for so steadfastly pursuing a deal that results in spending cuts that exceed the level of the debt ceiling increase.  Since Republicans took over the House, the tenor in Washington has changed from how much are we going to spend to how much are we going to cut.  This is a victory in and of itself for the American people.

However, I am firmly committed to the principles of Cut, Cap and Balance, and while this bill moves the ball in the right direction, it does not make the debt ceiling increase contingent upon passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment.  It further concerns me that tax increases could come into play as the newly created commission formulates its proposal and that the Department of Defense could be disproportionately affected by the process of sequestration.  While I applaud some aspects of this agreement, I believe that this is the time to amend to our Constitution to finally force Washington to live within its means—and I encourage my colleagues to continue their efforts to advance this principle.”
By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

I wish the Republican Presidential Candidates will give us specifics concerning where they would cut spending

August 19, 2011 – 10:01 am

I am not too happy with the budget deal because I WANT TO SEE REAL CUTS. I knew when I heard President Obama say that there would be no cuts during this sensitive time that meant till after his Presidency was over. That means these are mythical cuts that are scheduled for 2013 and may never happen.

Ron Paul seems to be the only Republican Presidential Candidate that gives us specific examples of where he would cut spending. Why can’t the others give us any examples.

I would like to start by eliminating the Dept of Education and then reducing the weeks a person can draw unemployment. 99 weeks is a crazy amount!!! How did we ever get to that point?

Here is an excellent article below that got me to thinking.

Now Answer Some Questions

by Michael D. Tanner

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on August 17, 2011.

Wth the Ames Straw Poll behind us, the race for the Republican presidential nomination is starting to pick up speed. That means it is more important than ever that we know just where the candidates stand.

Unfortunately, we can expect much of the media attention over the coming weeks to be focused on the “horse race” aspects of the campaign. Will Perry or Bachmann become the conservative alternative to Romney? Is there a dark horse out there somewhere? Who will make the next gaffe?

The candidates are not likely to make things easier. If what we have seen so far is any indication, we can expect lots of Obama-bashing, promises to be the most conservative candidate in the race, and platitudes about American greatness.

So, with that in mind, here are a few questions I’d like to see them answer:

What three programs (at least) would you cut or eliminate? Every Republican candidate has called for balancing the federal budget. Every candidate is also, justifiably, opposed to raising taxes. Since the federal government will spend $1.1 trillion more this year than it takes in, that means spending will have to be cut. Of course, everyone is against “fraud, waste, and abuse.” But the last time I looked, there is no line item called “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the federal budget. Across-the-board spending cuts are another type of cop out. They preserve worthless or wasteful programs, albeit at lower levels, while cutting programs that are actually useful. Balancing the budget without raising taxes is going to require cutting specific programs, so tell us which ones you would cut. And promising to “go through the budget line by line” or the equivalent doesn’t count. Surely by now you have figured out some specific programs that you are willing to cut — even if it means offending that program’s supporters.

How would you reform entitlements? Answering the first question was actually the easy part. Domestic discretionary spending makes up less than 20 percent of the federal budget. If you eliminated it all — the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the FDA, the FBI — we would still be running a deficit. Ultimately, dealing with our deficit and debt requires dealing with entitlements, particularly Medicare and Social Security. But so far we’ve heard little more than vague generalities. Do you support Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare reform? If not, what would you do? What about Social Security? Would you cut benefits? Should young workers be allowed to save a portion of their payroll taxes in personal accounts?

Are you a fair-weather federalist? Republicans have become fond of quoting the Tenth Amendment recently: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But we’ve heard that before. President Bush was all for states rights until a state did something he didn’t like, such as legalize medical marijuana or physician-assisted suicide. What happens now if a state, say, chooses to permit gay marriage? Already former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum has attacked Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Texas governor Rick Perry for even hinting that states have that authority. And Bachmann and Perry have started to go wobbly on the issue.

Are there any limits to our military commitments? We are now fighting at least three wars, not counting drone attacks and covert actions. We have troops in more than 100 countries and are still guarding South Korea from North Korea and Germany from, well, something. Are all these military commitments still necessary? Under what circumstances would you commit U.S. troops to combat? It’s not enough to say you would protect U.S. vital interests. What are those vital interests? Promoting democracy? Human rights? Fighting every last terrorist in any country that they pop up in? Ensuring “stability” in every area of the globe?

What is the proper role of government? It’s not possible to think of every possible issue that may come up during your presidency. That’s why it’s so important to know your animating principles when it comes to government. Is it government’s role to “create jobs”? Should government enforce moral values?  What things can only government do, and what should be left to civil society? Is there anything that you think is a good idea, but still shouldn’t be government policy?

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

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 16)

August 19, 2011 – 8:48 am

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, 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.

Broun Statement on the Budget Control Act

 
 

Washington, Jul 28 –

Congressman Paul Broun, M.D. (GA-10) today released the following statement on his vote against the Republican Budget Control Act, which passed the House of Representatives 218 to 210 votes:

“I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that puts the future of my grandchildren and of generations to come in jeopardy.  While I respect my Republican colleagues’ efforts to come up with a compromise, the people in the 10th Congressional District of Georgia did not send me to Washington to follow the herd.  They sent me here to protect their liberty and to fundamentally change the way our federal government spends their money.  I do support a Balanced Budget Amendment, but I do not support raising the debt ceiling and allowing President Obama to put more debt on the backs of the American people.  Congress needs to first acknowledge that we have lost all control of our fiscal house, and then we need to focus on finding a real solution for paying down the national debt.”

###

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Welfare States in Europe can not keep their promises of goodies (Part 1)

August 18, 2011 – 7:15 pm

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.

Flashing Red: European Debt Crisis Signals Collapse of Social Welfare State

By James Roberts and J.D. Foster, Ph.D.
August 16, 2011

Europe’s socialist (or “social democratic”) welfare state is collapsing under the load of unsustainable debt. There is no chance European politicians will ever make good on the many costly and unfunded entitlements they have promised their citizens.

The fundamental problem in the European Union is a monetary policy failure. In conjunction with the debilitating effects of the social welfare state, this has led to a broad economic collapse among the lesser states—notably the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain), but also some of the EU’s newer members—and it threatens to envelop the greater states.

For years, this collapse among the lesser states was disguised by debt accumulation—countries would borrow (at de facto concessionary interest rates) to overcome their inability to generate adequate income by producing and selling. The lack of actual and prospective growth combined with growing debt burdens has led to a long-term solvency crisis, which has been bubbling up of late into a series of liquidity crises.

The monetary and fiscal situation in the EU is increasingly unmanageable, as the debt burdens grow and growth prospects diminish further. To paraphrase an old saying: You can fool some of the credit markets all the time, and all the markets some of the time, but you cannot fool all the credit markets indefinitely.

The Ill-fated Euro Experiment  

The vision of a “euro zone” was ill-conceived from the start. It is now increasingly acknowledged that Brussels’ lack of control over social spending, especially in the PIIGS, doomed it from the beginning. Agreements (e.g., the Maastricht Treaty)[1] to stay within EU member government spending targets were routinely flouted, even by the largest EU countries.

But the growing gap in competitiveness amongst EU members was far more important. Some, like Germany, tended to adopt policies like labor market reforms that built on their inherent economic strengths. The strong got stronger, while others, like Italy and Greece, stood still or even retreated on policies that would have sustained their international competitiveness. The focus today on shifting painfully to policies that can make these countries competitive is simply too little, too late.

And now, the instability is rapidly spreading to the pillars of Europe—first Spain, then Italy, and now apparently to France. Southern Europeans kept borrowing in low-interest-rate euros (which simultaneously inflated housing bubbles in their countries) until, in Margaret Thatcher’s words, their socialist governments “ran out of other peoples’ money!”[2] As a result, some of Europe’s large private banks now hold toxic quantities of sovereign debt issued by the PIIGS and are threatened with extinction through serial defaults—thus they are deemed “too big to fail.” Already there is growing worry over the solvency of France’s Societe General Bank because of this crisis, with several other major European banks likely to be in trouble if the situation is not resolved.

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. Roberts is 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.

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

Tea Party representatives claim debt deal responsible for downgrade because it did not cut enough (Part 4)

August 18, 2011 – 10:59 am

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.

Republican presidential candidate and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann slammed President Obama late Friday, blaming his administration for a downgrade of the U.S. AAA credit rating by Standard & Poor’s.

“This president has destroyed the credit rating of the United States through his failed economic policies and his inability to control government spending by raising the debt ceiling,” Ms. Bachmann said. “President Obama is destroying the foundations of the U.S. economy one beam at a time.”

The Minnesota Republican, who continues to gain support in a series of recently released polls, has remained vocal in her opposition of the Obama administration’s economic policies. Earlier in the week Ms. Bachmann expressed opposition to a deal to increase the nation’s debt ceiling, calling on the Republican leadership to allow the debt limit to expire.

The Minnesota Republican made the statement just hours after the Obama administration pushed Standard & Poor’s to reconsider it’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating.

While Ms. Bachmann placed the blame squarely on the Obama administration, S&P said unceartinity resulting from the recent debate to increase the nation’s debt ceiling contributed to the decision to decrease the U.S. credit rating.

‘We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process,” the credit rating agency said in a statement.

It remains unclear what effect the credit downgrade will have on financial markets. The Dow suffered its worst day since the 2008 financial crisis, losing 513 points on Thursday, a sign that markets may have already priced in a credit downgrade.

With President Obama’s job-approval rating at 48 percent and an all- time high of 82 percent of Americans giving Congress negative marks in a New York Times/CBS News Poll taken this week, the downgrade could place further blame on the president and congressional lawmakers, analysts say.

Cravaack Statement on S & P Credit Rating Downgrade

08/08/11

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Representative Chip Cravaack (MN) issued the following statement in response to loss of the nation’s  AAA credit rating: 

“Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the nation’s AAA credit rating is extremely unfortunate, but not unexpected.  I urge the President and Senate Majority Leader Reid to put forth their plans to achieve long-term fiscal sustainability and confidence in our nation’s credit; the House-passed ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ would have prevented a national credit downgrade.  I look forward to working with my colleagues on a responsible path forward that protects Minnesota working families and job creators.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 15)

August 18, 2011 – 8:43 am

Sen Obama in 2006 Against Raising Debt Ceiling

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 15)

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.

STEARNS OPPOSES LARGEST DEBT LIMIT INCREASE IN NATION’S HISTORY – ONLY REDUCES SPENDING NEXT YEAR BY $6 BILLION WITH $1.5 TRILLION BUDGET DEFICIT
LESS STRINGENT SAFEGUARDS ON THE PRESIDENT IN RAISING THE DEBT CEILING NEXT YEAR

 
 

Washington, Aug 1 –

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff identified our deficit crisis as America’s greatest threat, and this measure does not go far enough in holding down the growth in our national debt,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Sixth).  “Without significant spending cuts and reforms to essential programs, we are facing fiscal insolvency and the collapse of essential programs such as Social Security and Medicare.”

Stearns today opposed passage of S. 365, the Budget Control Act, which would increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion.  “The final measure cuts less spending in the first year than the Boehner plan; the Boehner plan cut $22 billion compared with as little as $6 billion in this measure,” added Stearns.  “I supported the Boehner plan to move us forward in reaching the $4 trillion in savings needed to avoid a ratings downgrade.  This bill is $1.6 trillion short of what is needed to prevent a downgrade.”

Concluded Stearns, “This measure also makes it easier for the President to increase the debt limit in the future.  In addition, the language for a balanced budget amendment is less precise and only requires a vote in the House and Senate instead of its actual passage by both that would result in it being sent to the states for ratification.   Another concern was that this final plan sets discretionary spending for fiscal year 2012 at $24 billion higher than in the Ryan Budget Resolution, which I supported.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balance Budget Amendment? (Part 3 Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

August 18, 2011 – 12:57 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.

Marco Rubio is one of your fellow citizens and he noted:

A balanced budget amendment would be a necessary step in reversing Washington’s tax-borrow-spend mantra. It would force Congress to balance its budget each year – not allow it to pass our problems on to the next generation any longer.

The Balanced Budget Amendment is the only thing I can think of that would force Washington to cut spending. We have only a handful of balanced budgets in the last 60 years, so obviously what we are doing is not working. We are passing along this debt to the next generation.

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

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

 In my two short months in office, it has become clear to me that the spending problem in Washington is far worse than many of us feared. For years, politicians have blindly poured more and more borrowed money into ineffective government programs, leaving us with trillion dollar deficits and a crippling debt burden that threatens prosperity and economic growth.

In the Florida House of Representatives, where a balanced budget is a requirement, we had to make the tough choices to cut spending where necessary because it was required by state law. By no means was this an easy process, but it was our duty as elected officials to be accountable to our constituents and to future generations of Floridians. In Washington, a balanced budget amendment is not just a fiscally-responsible proposal, it’s a necessary step to curb politicians’ decades-long penchant for overspending.

Several senators have proposed balanced budget amendments that ensure Congress will not spend a penny more than we take in, while setting a high hurdle for future tax hikes. I am a co-sponsor of two balanced budget amendments, since it is clear that these measures would go a long way to reversing the spending gusher we’ve seen from Washington in recent years.

During my Senate campaign, while surrounded by the employees of Jacksonville’s Meridian Technologies, I proposed 12 simple ways to cut spending in Washington. That company, founded 13 years ago, has grown into a 200-employee, high-tech business, and the ideas I proposed would help ensure that similar companies have the opportunity to start or expand just like Meridian did.

To be clear, our unsustainable debt and deficits are threatening companies like Meridian and impeding job creation. In addition to proposing a balanced budget amendment, I recommended canceling unspent “stimulus” funds, banning all earmarks and returning discretionary spending to 2008 levels.

Fortunately, some of my ideas have found their way to the Senate chamber. The first bill I co-sponsored in the Senate was to repeal ObamaCare, the costly overhaul of our nation’s health care system that destroys jobs and impedes our economic recovery. Democratic leaders in the Senate have expressed their willingness to ban earmarks for two years after the Senate Republican conference adopted a moratorium. I have also co-sponsored the REINS Act, a common-sense measure that would increase accountability and transparency in our outdated and burdensome regulatory process. These bills, along with a balanced budget amendment, would help get our country back on a sustainable path and provide certainty to job creators.

While Republicans are proposing a variety of ideas to rein in Washington’s out-of-control spending, unfortunately, President Obama’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year proposes to spend $46 trillion, and even in its best year, the deficit would remain above $600 billion. Worst of all, the President’s budget completely avoids addressing the biggest drivers of our long-term debt – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Rather than tackle these tough, serious issues, President Obama is proposing a litany of tax hikes on small businesses and entrepreneurs, to the tune of more than $1.6 trillion. These tax increases destroy jobs, make us less competitive internationally and hurt our efforts to grow the economy and get our fiscal house in order.

A balanced budget amendment would be a necessary step in reversing Washington’s tax-borrow-spend mantra. It would force Congress to balance its budget each year – not allow it to pass our problems on to the next generation any longer.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida and former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)