Generous to a Default
Tony Perkins, Washington Update: As the President works to stoke the fears of Americans about the debt debate, genuine fear is gripping conservative members of Congress. It's fear that this unique moment in history, where we have an opportunity to reform a broken system of government, will be lost. There is growing concern that Republicans may settle for a "deal" that raises the debt ceiling but shortchanges the voters who elected this Congress to fundamentally change Washington. But, there is reason for optimism. In my conversations with a number of conservative members, it's clear that a consensus is building to move forward with a Cut, Cap and Balance bill. Frustrated with the other options on the table, leaders like Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) are pulling together a concrete proposal to cut the deficit in half, cap spending at 18% of the economy, and balance the budget. Instead of making "cut, cap, and balance" part of the plan to raise the debt ceiling, cut, cap, and balance would be the plan.
"We're going to introduce a [proposal] that would give the President an increase in the debt limit," Sen. DeMint said this morning, "but it's contingent on cutting spending and capping spending over several years, and giving the states the opportunity to decide if we're going to balance our budget in the next decade." Unlike the other alternatives, this measure puts the onus on the President to stop talking about tough choices and start making them. For once, Congress would have a clear path forward to a final agreement that forces Washington to live within its means. Under this proposal, America's credit limit would increase by $2.4 trillion--but only when the cuts and caps are in place, and a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification.
This is a better way forward for those who truly want to reform Washington and bring about fiscal responsibility. The Cut, Cap, Balance Act, which would only require 218 votes, is a great first step toward getting 290 members on board to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. If, instead, the House leads with a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment before the August 2nd deadline and fails, there will be little political will and even less time to start over with the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill. In the meantime, the media should start pressing the President on his statement that he "can't guarantee" that seniors or the military would get their checks after August 2nd if the debt ceiling isn't raised. While the spin benefits him politically, the reality is, this administration has a whole host of non-essential government programs it could postpone to keep Social Security afloat. (Click here to see some of those options.) ... [More Good Info]
Tags: ony Perkins, Washington update, Cut, Cap, Balance, national debt To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
"We're going to introduce a [proposal] that would give the President an increase in the debt limit," Sen. DeMint said this morning, "but it's contingent on cutting spending and capping spending over several years, and giving the states the opportunity to decide if we're going to balance our budget in the next decade." Unlike the other alternatives, this measure puts the onus on the President to stop talking about tough choices and start making them. For once, Congress would have a clear path forward to a final agreement that forces Washington to live within its means. Under this proposal, America's credit limit would increase by $2.4 trillion--but only when the cuts and caps are in place, and a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification.
This is a better way forward for those who truly want to reform Washington and bring about fiscal responsibility. The Cut, Cap, Balance Act, which would only require 218 votes, is a great first step toward getting 290 members on board to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. If, instead, the House leads with a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment before the August 2nd deadline and fails, there will be little political will and even less time to start over with the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill. In the meantime, the media should start pressing the President on his statement that he "can't guarantee" that seniors or the military would get their checks after August 2nd if the debt ceiling isn't raised. While the spin benefits him politically, the reality is, this administration has a whole host of non-essential government programs it could postpone to keep Social Security afloat. (Click here to see some of those options.) ... [More Good Info]
Tags: ony Perkins, Washington update, Cut, Cap, Balance, national debt To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
2 Comments:
Comment on Article via Maggie's Notebook
As far as “Putting the Onus on BHO” is concerned the best idea I’ve heard came from Mark Levin on his July 13 radio show. It basically boils down to just asking the House GOP to do its job and pass some legislation.
Interest due on the debt in August is about 15% of revenue into the Treasury for August. A little more math, and you figure out entitlements can be covered if approximately half the bureaucracy is given an unplanned vacation. House GOP should just pass a spending bill making debt interest, entitlements, and military salaries spending priorities #1, #2, and #3. Then let Dingy Harry and Veto Barry own defaulting or stiffing Grandma instead of sending half the burea-weenie army home for a month. The House GOP could even take the rest of July off to counter DemoHack lies full time.
Repeat monthly until Barry the Temper-Tantrum-Toddler-In-Chief shows us “his bluff” – which will probably be impeachable.
d(^_^)b
Comment on This Post via Maggie's Notebook
Cut Cap and Balance is a great plan. So is the House passing legislation which forces Dems to vote no or yes and puts the onus on the Prez to decide whether to veto that piece of legislation or not. If he vetoes it, then he’d be the one solely responsible for us defaulting.
Post a Comment
<< Home