Tag Archives: spending cut

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

December 8, 2011 – 12:04 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 | Posted in spending out of control | Also tagged , , | Comments (0)

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

December 1, 2011 – 6:49 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.

You asked for ideas to cut spending, but you voted for the 800 billion dollar stimulus that did not help the economy at all. I have included an article below that makes a very good point about the Balanced Budget Amendment and the stimulus:

Lee believes there are several key components to a balanced budget amendment which he outlines in his book, including making tax increases contingent on a two-thirds vote in Congress so that the option to increase taxes is not the default maneuver to balance a budget. He believes the amendment should require Congress spends no more than it takes in, and in fact should cap the spending at a fixed percent of GDP (the proposal submitted in the Senate caps it at 18 percent of GDP, just about the historical average). There would also be a supermajority vote required to raise the debt ceiling.

And for those who argue that stimulus packages wouldn’t have been possible under the amendment, Lee sees little difficulty responding.

“That’s exibit A for why we ought to have it,” Lee said of the Obama stimulus package.

That is a very good point in favor of having a balanced budget amendment in my view. I have been critical of you for supporting the stimulus in the past.

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

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher

Lee Makes His Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment

By Elisabeth Meinecke

7/18/2011

As Washington spends the summer arguing over its spending addiction, GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has a solution to help prevent the same crisis for future generations: a balanced budget amendment.

The House made news last week when, in the heat of negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, they announced a vote on a balanced budget amendment this Wednesday. Though the Senate GOP introduced a one earlier this year, President Obama has stated emphatically otherwise, telling Americans last week during a press conference that the country does not need a balanced budget amendment.

“Yes, we do,” Lee told Townhall when asked to respond to the president, adding later when talking about simultaneously raising the debt ceiling and cutting spending, “We can’t bind what a future Congress will do. We can pass laws that will affect this year, but there will be a new Congress that takes power in January of 2013, and then another new one that will take power in January 2015. And they will make their own spending decisions then — we can’t bind them unless we amend the Constitution to do so.”

Lee points out that the American people support the idea of a balanced budget – 65 percent, according to a Sachs/Mason Dixon poll from this year – but politicians have been reluctant to wade into the debate.

“The fact that we’re in this debate, the fact that we’re sort of deadlocked, or we’ve reached a point of gridlock in the discussions, is indicative of the problem that we have,” Lee said.

In fact, Lee thinks a balanced budget amendment is so important to the future of the country that he’s written a book on it: The Freedom Agenda: Why a Balanced Budget Amendment Is Necessary to Restore Constitutional Government.

Lee even takes the argument a step beyond fiscal issues, saying a balanced budget amendment safeguards individual liberties.

““The more money it [Congress] has access to, whether it’s through borrowing or through taxation, either way, that’s going to fuel Congress’ expansion, and whenever government acts, it does so at the expanse of individual liberty,” Lee said. “We become less free every time government expands.”

Lee believes there are several key components to a balanced budget amendment which he outlines in his book, including making tax increases contingent on a two-thirds vote in Congress so that the option to increase taxes is not the default maneuver to balance a budget. He believes the amendment should require Congress spends no more than it takes in, and in fact should cap the spending at a fixed percent of GDP (the proposal submitted in the Senate caps it at 18 percent of GDP, just about the historical average). There would also be a supermajority vote required to raise the debt ceiling.

And for those who argue that stimulus packages wouldn’t have been possible under the amendment, Lee sees little difficulty responding.

“That’s exibit A for why we ought to have it,” Lee said of the Obama stimulus package.

Lee also pointed out that his balanced budget amendment includes an exception to the spending restriction in time of war – “not a blank check, but to the extent necessary.” Congress would also be able to supersede the amendment with a two-thirds vote.

“We wanted to make it difficult, but not impossible, for Congress to spend more than it had access to,” Lee said, citing as an example a massive or immediate crisis created by a national emergency or natural disaster. “What this is designed to do is to make it more difficult – to make it impossible – for Congress to just do this as a matter of course.”

Elisabeth Meinecke

Elisabeth Meinecke is Associate Editor with Townhall.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (Part 18 Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

November 24, 2011 – 9:40 am

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (Part 18 Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

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.

Recently I read a great article from the Heritage Foundation on the Balanced Budget Amendment. Here is a portion of that article:

In the immediate term, Congress should address this problem by pursuing a reform path that drives down federal spending and borrowing and gets to a balanced budget. Saving the American Dream is Heritage’s plan to do just that: balancing the federal budget in 10 years and keeping it balanced in the future—without raising taxes or neglecting our national defense. Starting immediately, Congress should take every opportunity to cut and cap federal spending, and that includes addressing the unsustainable costs of America’s entitlement programs.

A part of the long-term agenda to rein in government is an appropriate and sound amendment to the Constitution that would keep federal spending under control in subsequent years. Indeed, the principal reason for adopting a balanced budget constitutional amendment is to limit the size and scope of the federal government by limiting its spending.

Proponents have long advocated this extraordinary step because other methods of controlling spending—by rule or statute—have broken down. What was once considered part of the nation’s “unwritten” constitution—that as a rule the government should not spend beyond its means—has been lost. A constitutional rule, if properly written and enforced, would have more power than any legislative mechanism for maintaining a limit on spending.

As Heritage’s David Addington has previously stated, a BBA should do three core things.

  1. First, it should control spending, taxation, and borrowing by capping annual spending and requiring Congress to act by supermajority votes if Members wish to raise taxes. These requirements are especially necessary under current circumstances—prior to having seriously reduced spending and reformed entitlement programs, the main drivers of the country’s debt.
  2. Second, it should allow Congress by supermajority votes to waive temporarily compliance with the balanced budget requirement when it is essential to national security—the one core function that is the federal government’s exclusive constitutional responsibility.
  3. Third, it should provide for its own enforcement, specifically excluding courts from any enforcement and preventing government from just borrowing more money to meet the BBA requirement.

A BBA without these provisions doesn’t address the underlying spending problem, puts pressure on Congress to increase taxes or issue more debt rather than cut spending or reform entitlements, and invites unelected judges to insert themselves even more in the policymaking process. Which is to say that, rather than simplifying matters, a weak BBA would likely make the situation much worse.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (Part 12 Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

October 20, 2011 – 12:35 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.

____________

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) will not vote for a balanced budget amendment proposal unless it includes a cap on federal spending. However, he is undecided whether the amendment absolutely must require a supermajority of Congress to approve a tax hike for him to support it.

“The most important element is the cap on spending,” Gohmert told CNSNews.com. “If there is no cap on spending, then the balanced budget amendment is a formula for ever- increasing spending and ever-increasing taxing that will just spiral upward and upward again. So there’s got to be included a cap on spending, and best if it’s related to a percentage of GDP. But, absolutely, if there is no cap on spending, I could not vote for it.”

The actual language of the balanced budget amendment that Congress will vote on before the end of the year has not yet been determined. However, many conservatives fear that Republican leaders may agree to vote on a stripped down amendment that requires Congress to balance the budget but does not cap spending as a percentage of GDP or require supermajorities to raise taxes. They fear that an amendment of that nature–which might win the backing of some incumbent congressional liberals–would become a constitutional lever for sustaining big government via ever-escalating federal taxation.

When the Republican-controlled-House approved the cut, cap and balance plan last on July 19 in 234-190 vote, it included a version of the balanced budget amendment to cap federal spending at 19.9 percent of GDP. The GOP originally sought to hold federal spending to 18 percent of GDP.

The version of the balanced budget amendment in the cut, cap and balance plan also required two-thirds majorities in both houses to approve a tax increase. The amendment also would have prohibited deficit spending unless there was a national security emergency or a supermajority of Congress voted for it. On July 22, the Senate voted 51-46 to approve a procedural motion that blocked substantive consideration of the cut, cap and balance bill in that body.

The debt-limit deal reached by President Barack Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) requires that both houses of Congress give an up or down vote to a balanced budget amendment before the end of the year. However, it does not specify what the language of the amendment would be.

If two-thirds of Congress votes to approve a balanced budget amendment, it would then have to be ratified by 38 states, or three-fourths.

The House passed that debt-limit deal by a 269-161 vote on Aug. 1. Gohmert was one of 66 Republicans who voted against it.

“As far as the supermajority to raise taxes, that’s our preference, but the key element, the most important element is the cap on spending,” Gohmert said. “If there is no supermajority to raise taxes then I’d just have to look at it more closely to see what all was there to see if it was something I could vote for or not.”

Gohmert believes this is a winning issue for Republicans.

“Well, I think it’s like this: We either have a legitimate Balanced Budget Amendment pass with a cap on spending, or I really believe if it does not pass, you will see many of those who voted against it turned out both in the House and Senate in the next election,” Gohmert said. “So I think it’s an either/or. Either people vote for it and it passes, or we have a significant change in the people that are in the House and Senate that voted against it.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Also tagged , , | Comments (0)

Letter to Senator Mark Pryor concerning debt ceiling debate July 26, 2011

July 26, 2011 – 4:14 pm

Dear Senator Pryor,

The President asked us to contact those representing us in Washington and that is exactly what I am doing today. Let make a few points.

First, in the past few months I have responded to your request to provide SPECIFIC SPENDING CUT SUGGESTIONS to your office. I have done so over 100 times and I have also posted them one at a time on my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com .

Second, I have also written many posts concerning your political views and many of these articles have got lots of hits on my blog. In fact, when I started in December of 2010 I was only getting a handful of hits every week, but now I have got over 60,000 hits in the first 7 months on my website and I have you to thank for a lot of those hits.

Third, Arkansas is turning conservative and I wonder if you will change with Arkansas. Just recently you went across the state saying that the Republicans wanted to push granny off the cliff. Does that sound like you are open to making changes to make sure that Medicare survives?

Fourth, you wanted me to give you specific suggestions to cut federal spending. I have an easy one for you: Eliminate the Dept of Education!! That would save over 100 billion right there!!!

Fifth, if you want to raise taxes on the job creators during this time then you will be guilty of  destroying the recovery. You have already been guilty of slowly down the recovery with the silly stimulus bill. Every prediction that President Obama made about the stimulus have proven to be incorrect!!! Everyone of them!!!

I have done my duty that my President asked me to do by contacting you. Below you will find a letter that says perfectly what I think about this current debt ceiling crisis. Recently I got to hear Ernest Istook the president of the Heritage Foundation speak in Little Rock. He did a great job.

Below is an excerpt from a letter that went out today from the Heritage Foundation:

Our nation is in the midst of a fiscal crisis, but it is one that has nothing to do with an August 2 “deadline” for a deal or President Obama and Secretary Geithner’s fear mongering over recent days and weeks. The crisis is one of over $62 trillion in unfunded obligations that are the loudest warning bell possible of the systemic problems plaguing our nation. Washington should not ignore or postpone dealing with this problem once again.

Twice already this year, the House of Representatives has voted for plans that would address our fiscal crisis and save our nation from a creditworthiness downgrade. In April, the House passed a bold budget, which would place our nation on a different, more sustainable and prosperous course. Last week, the House passed the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which would force future Congresses to live within their means and rapidly bring down our nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio. Unfortunately, both of these responsible proposals were defeated by an ideological Senate, which has offered few ideas of its own.

Clearly, the most blame belongs to the President and the Senate – a President who comes up with no useful fiscal plan of his own and a Senate that refuses to pass meaningful legislation to save the American dream from a fiscal tsunami. We cannot, however, continue business as usual by raising the debt limit without substantively addressing our nation’s fiscal challenges. The entire purpose of the debt limit is to put an end to borrowing when it reaches a point that our nation finds unacceptable. There is no point in having a debt limit if the option of using it to address overspending and overborrowing is so intimidating that it is unilaterally taken off the table.

 

Speaker Boehner’s most recent proposal to raise the debt limit is regrettably insufficient to our times. Step one of the Speaker’s proposal would cut $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending. Assuming all of these cuts materialized, this would reduce our nation’s projected debt at the end of the decade from $24.9 trillion to $23.7 trillion. Step two would create a special committee, which has three major problems: (1) The “deficit reduction” of $1.8 trillion remains insufficient for our times; (2) “Deficit reduction” is a well-known codeword for “tax increases”; and (3) 17 blue-ribbon panels, commissions and the like since 1982 have gotten our nation into the mess we are in and there is no obvious reason as to why the 18th will get us out. Further, this proposal would outline a fast track proposal that unduly limits the rights of the congressional minority.

All in all, under a best case scenario where all of the cuts envisioned in the Boehner plan come to fruition, they would only reduce our nation’s projected debt-to-GDP ratio from 104% to 92% – a ratio far higher than its current 62 percent, which Moody’s has already said must come down to maintain our nation’s stable outlook.

Harry Reid’s proposal to raise the debt ceiling is equally unacceptable. It appears to be the latest in a line of proposals that began with the McConnell Proposal, morphed into the McConnell-Reid Proposal, further deteriorated into the Gang of Six Proposal, and has now resurfaced as the Reid Proposal. Each of these insufficiently bold ideas would lead to an increase in the debt limit in exchange for few, if any, actual cuts off existing spending levels. In normal times we might take these as one step toward a path of fiscal sanity.  But we do not have the luxury of taking that kind of small first step at this juncture.  The rating agencies are poised to downgrade us within months if we don’t pass something like the House of Representatives’ first two attempts . . .  The last thing our country needs is a clean debt limit increase with some fancy window dressing to try to fool the American people.

All in all, Heritage Action remains where we were at the start of the summer: absolutely convinced our nation is in fiscal crisis and certain that bold political leadership is necessary to save the American dream. Congress should drive down federal spending on the way to a balanced budget, while protecting America, and without raising taxes. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be what we will get from Washington, which has irresponsibly turned its back on the only real plans out there: The House Budget and the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. As such, Washington should be forced to live under the current debt limit until it’s ready to make tough choices – choices that it should make, and has time to make, this week.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Needham
Chief Executive Officer

___________________________________

Thank you for your time. I know that you are very busy.

From Everette Hatcher

Alexander, AR 72002

Related posts:

Brummett is fooled by Pryor’s assurance that gang of 6 offers real cuts now (Part 2)

  John Brummett in his article, “By Pryor prediction, gang of 6 emerges,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 21, 2011 asserts: So what’s in this great new plan from the Gang of Six? Only about $4 trillion in real deficit reduction achieved by deep defense cuts, commission-delegated reductions in spending for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, […]

 

Brummett is fooled by Pryor’s assurance that gang of 6 offers real cuts now

John Brummett in his article, “By Pryor prediction, gang of 6 emerges,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 21, 2011 asserts: So what’s in this great new plan from the Gang of Six? Only about $4 trillion in real deficit reduction achieved by deep defense cuts, commission-delegated reductions in spending for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, plugging […]

 

Mark Pryor and the liberal gang of six plan

Today I read in the article, “Pryor backing bipartisan debt reduction plan,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 20,2011 the following words: Sen. Mark Pryor said today he supports a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan unveiled Tuesday by six Republican and Democrats as a “carefully crafted balanced” way to avert a looming financial crisis. The Arkansas Democrat was […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)