Oklahoma delegation splits on debt ceiling increase vote

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to raise the debt limit by roughly $4T (trillion with a t) through January 2025 by a vote of 314-117 (165 Democrats and 149 Republicans in favor, 71 Republicans and 46 Democrats opposed). The U.S. Senate approved the measure on Thursday with a 63-36 vote (46 Democrats and 17 Republicans in favor, 31 Republicans and 5 Democrats opposed).

Among Oklahoma all-GOP delegation, Sen. James Lankford and Reps. Kevin Hern (1st District) and Josh Brecheen (2nd District) voted against it. Sen. Markwayne Mullin joined the moderate wing of the Senate GOP in supporting the measure, as did Reps. Frank Lucas (3rd District), Tom Cole (4th District), and Stephanie Bice (5th District) in the House. 

Below are statements from those members who have issued them since the vote (Hern appears to be the only one without a public comment).

Brecheen to vote NO on Biden-McCarthy debt ceiling deal as it currently stands

Congressman Josh Brecheen To Vote NO on Biden-McCarthy Debt Ceiling Agreement As It Currently Stands

Washington, D.C. (May 30th) – Congressman Josh Brecheen will vote NO on H.R. 3746, the Biden-McCarthy debt ceiling agreement as it currently stands.

Oklahoma Congressmen comment on passage of bill to raise debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts

On Wednesday, all five of Oklahoma's U.S. Representatives voted in favor of the 'Limit, Save, Grow Act', which increases the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts.

Read below for comments from Reps. Hern, Brecheen, Lucas, and Cole:

Lankford: "Our nation’s out-of-control spending needs to stop"

Lankford Strongly Opposes Raising Debt Ceiling

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator James Lankford (R-OK) issued the following statement after Senate Democrats voted to increase the debt ceiling, which Lankford has been critical of for months saying Democrats should be responsible for their reckless spending:

“As I have stated throughout this process, I am strongly opposed to raising the debt ceiling without ever having a conversation about how to stop out-of-control federal spending. This entire process of continued unchecked spending only encourages more unchecked spending. Democrats have already spent over $3 trillion this year and still want to spend another $2 plus trillion. Their vote to increase the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion paves the way for more overspending and more debt in the next 13 months. It is time to get Congress back to actual budgeting that does not put our country into debt. Our nation’s out-of-control spending needs to stop.”

Hern votes against "swampy" debt limit increase

Hern votes against swampy debt limit increase

WASHINGTON, DC – Representative Kevin Hern (OK-01) released the following statement after voting against the House Amendment to S. 610, a bill changing the rules of the Senate to allow the Democrats to circumvent the 60-vote threshold for cloture, which they can already do using the reconciliation process.

“Earlier this year, I led over 100 of my colleagues in the House in the commitment against voting for a debt limit increase,” said Rep. Hern. “Our Republican colleagues in the Senate signed a similar commitment, giving the Democrats several months’ notice that they would need to do this on their own. Instead of working ahead to avoid a default on our debts, Democrats waited until the last minute and are trying to rewrite the rules of the Senate instead of using the tools already at their disposal, like the reconciliation process. The American people don’t trust these swampy maneuvers; they see through the false statements from Democrats who control the White House and both chambers of Congress yet blame their gridlock on Republicans.”

Oklahoma Congressmen vote against spending bill and debt limit suspension

Oh look, the U.S. House just voted to spend gobs of money and suspend the debt limit.

In other words, it's a day that ends in 'y'.

While I do appreciate that our Republican delegation voted against this particular measure, their stern words about excessive spending and drowning debt fall a bit flat given that the GOP under both of the last Republican presidents (Trump and Bush) spent money like it grew on trees. Republicans in power: spend-spend-spend! Republicans out of power: fiscal responsibility!

Lucas Statement on Continuing Resolution & Suspending the Debt Limit

Washington, DC (Sept. 21st) – Congressman Frank Lucas (OK-03) released the following statement today after the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5305- the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act, a continuing resolution that includes a measure to suspend the nation’s debt limit through December 2022.

“Last election cycle, Democrats won control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Since then, instead of working through regular order in a bipartisan, meaningful manner with Republicans, Democrats have chosen the ‘go it alone’ approach and have laid out a reckless tax and spending plan that will fall on the backs of America’s working families and businesses- Congressional Democrats proudly did this once before and are unabashed about spending an additional $3.5 trillion. It should come as no surprise that Republicans would support a clean continuing resolution that includes appropriate disaster relief and necessary Afghan aid but not the irresponsible measure that encourages Congressional Democrats to continue their spending spree.

 

“Let’s be clear, the last suspension of the debt limit this past August accounted for all the spending that had occurred up to that date. This isn’t about Congress’ past spending, this is about our future spending. Since Democrats have decided to govern alone, they should be ready lift the debt limit alone.

“With only nine days before federal government funding runs out, I hope my colleagues drop their political posturing and join House and Senate Republicans in our efforts to ensure that we keep critical programs funded and operational.”

Hern votes against Continuing Resolution, urges return to budget process

WASHINGTON, DC (Sept. 21st) – Representative Kevin Hern (OK-01) released the following statement after voting against HR 5305, the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act, a continuing resolution to fund the federal government and suspend the federal debt limit.

“Once again, the Democrat majority has put the federal government on autopilot,” said Rep. Hern. “What are we doing here? Our constituents did not send us here to do the same thing over and over and over again. We must interrupt this never-ending cycle of apathetic governance and do the hard work of passing a budget. The text of the continuing resolution we voted on tonight was not public as of this morning, we received the text with just hours to read it before the vote. The deadline is next week, we didn’t have to rush this to the floor tonight.”

Cole Votes Against Suspending the Debt Limit

Washington, D.C. (Sept. 21st) – Congressman Tom Cole (OK-04) issued the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5305. This measure includes a continuing resolution to fund the government at current (fiscal year 2021) levels through December 3, 2021, with additional items attached, including a provision that would suspend the debt limit until the end of 2022. Cole voted against the legislation.

“As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I certainly recognize the importance of keeping the government open and operating. However, I could not support the short-term funding measure brought to the House floor by Democrats this week due to the irresponsible inclusion of a provision to suspend the debt limit until the end of next year,” said Cole. “Such action would effectively deliver a blank check enabling President Biden and Democrats to plow further ahead on their monstrous spending spree on radical, socialist-style priorities and programs.

“Since taking control of the White House and the Senate, Democrats have shown no desire to restore fiscal sanity and revealed every intention to tax and spend unlike any other time in American history. Indeed, enacting legislation to suspend the debt limit, conveniently until after the midterm elections next year, would only pave the way for more big-government spending that has already led to higher taxes on businesses and the taxation of inflation on the American people.

“Considering that Democrats control the legislative and executive branches, if they want to continue to push their misguided, out-of-control spending, it should be up to them to figure out how to pay for it themselves. But in the meantime, Democrats will certainly not receive any help from Republicans in their quest to bankrupt future generations.

"Funding the government is one of the most fundamental roles of Congress, and I am disappointed that Democrats have chosen to add controversial items to a measure to prevent a shutdown. Once Democrats come to their senses, I look forward to voting for a measure to responsibly keep the government open and to address pressing matters, of importance to both parties, such as disaster relief, aid for Afghan refugees and support for Israel.”

Cole also made remarks on the House floor while managing debate on the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5305. Video is available here.

Congressman Markwayne Mullin:

Our country cannot afford to keep kicking the can down the road and passing bills off to the next generation.

— Markwayne Mullin (@RepMullin) September 22, 2021

Bridenstine: 'No Budget, No Pay', No Good [UPDATED]

From the office of Congressman Jim Bridenstine:

House Republicans have created a plan bold in name, but weak in substance.  It’s called “No Budget, No Pay”.  Here is the plan:

1. Suspend the debt limit until May 19th.  
2. Make zero cuts to spending in the deal.
3. Violate the 27th Amendment of the Constitution by “varying” congressional compensation.
4. Let military sequestration take effect, cutting $500 billion from the Department of Defense.
5. Pass a Continuing Resolution codifying federal spending at post-sequester levels.
6. Wait to fight for spending cuts until we hit the debt ceiling again in May 2013.

Here are the reasons I am voting “no” on “No Budget, No Pay.”

The first part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to suspend the debt limit through May 19, 2013 with no spending cuts.  It seems Republicans have decided not to leverage the debt limit to achieve real reforms.  In lieu of cuts, the bill will contain language stating that the Senate must pass a budget or not be paid.  This sounds strong, but there will be no clause stating that the Senate budget must place us on a path to fiscal responsibility.  Nor will there be a clause stating that the Senate budget must be reconciled with the House budget.  This is seemingly just a ploy.

American voters do not want the debt ceiling to be raised without spending cuts.  A CBS News / New York Times poll, conducted January 11-15, found 60% of all Americans want to see the debt ceiling raised with spending cuts.  Only 17% want the ceiling raised without cuts.  A Fox News poll reported 69% who say Congress should only raise the debt limit after agreeing on major cuts in spending.

A suspension of the debt ceiling is more alarming than an increase.  The bill as presented leaves no statutory limit on federal debt.  It assumes that the Treasury will not reverse its extraordinary measures, replacing the funds “borrowed” from other accounts by issuing billions of additional debt in the three month interval.  That is an assumption that has not been acceptable in the past and is not acceptable today.

I campaigned saying I would raise the debt ceiling only if substantial spending cuts or a balanced budget amendment was included.  Raising the ceiling without negotiating spending cuts will disappoint voters, putting a lot of pressure on everyone who campaigned on fiscal conservatism or responsibility.

Since the Democratic Senate will not go for a 3-month debt limit suspension that ties their pay to a budget, this plan will be spun as gimmicky and not serious.  Republicans will not win the public relations effort, but they will be on record voting to allow the debt to increase with no spending cuts.  This will alienate the Republican base.

The second part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to let sequestration take effect in March, cutting $500 billion from the Department of Defense.  This is intended to put pressure on the Democrats to reform entitlements.  Using threats to curtail military funding to create a crisis for the purpose of political advantage is an inappropriate policy.  This bad policy also enables the President to continue compromising our national security for a social welfare agenda that restricts economic freedom, punishes achievement, cripples our economy, and makes us less competitive in the world.

It should be noted that there are no new savings when we allow the Sequester to take place.  These savings were a result of the August 2011 debt ceiling increase negotiation.  It should also be noted that using a debt limit increase to control spending has been successful in the past and it will be successful in February 2013 if Republicans are willing to forgo the “No Budget, No Pay” debt limit suspension for a real negotiation.

The third part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to codify the Sequester with a continuing resolution at post-sequester spending levels.  Again, there are no new savings here.  These savings were a result of the 2011 debt limit increase negotiations.  We need new savings (cuts, reforms, etc.)

The fourth part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to have a “real” fight over the debt limit in May.  The reality is that if a vote to raise the debt limit ‘clean’ (without spending cuts) comes to the floor, 30 Republicans will join 200 Democrats and there will be no savings realized.

My final concern is the most difficult to ignore.  “Varying” congressional compensation appears unconstitutional by both letter and original intent.  The text of the 27th Amendment was submitted by the Framers as part of the original Bill of Rights in 1789.  It was ratified in 1992, 202 years later.  If the Framers of the 27th Amendment had simply meant that compensation of Senators and Representatives not be “increased nor diminished” then they would have used that exact phrase as it stands in the Constitution referring to the compensation of the President in Article II, Section 1.  Instead, the Amendment is written , “No law, varying the compensation.”  Varying the timing of payment is varying the payment.  Your banker will testify.

Jim Bridenstine is a freshman U.S. Representative from Oklahoma's 1st Congressional District. You can visit his congressional website here.


Once again, Republican leadership in the U.S. House appears to be kicking the can down the road on cutting spending. This latest proposal is dangerous, and conservatives in Congress ought to stand up against it. It would be a real shame if Jim Bridenstine is the only Oklahoma member of Congress to vote against the "No Budget, No Pay" scam.

It's time that Republicans in Congress got serious about cutting spending!

** UPDATE **

Call your members of Congress! As of last night, Rep. Bridenstine was the only Oklahoman committed to vote against the 'No Budget, No Pay' sham. Per phone calls this morning, Rep. Mullin may still be on the fence. The Muskogee Tea Party is urging members to call Congress today, as are other Oklahoma Tea Party groups like the Tulsa 912 Project, OKforTea.


Congressional District 1: Rep. Jim Bridenstine (freshman; THANK for committing to vote 'no'!)
D.C. 1-202-225-2211 
Tulsa: (918) 935-3222

Congressional District 2: Rep. Markwayne Mullin (freshman; enough calls and he might vote 'no')
D.C. 1-202-225-2701   
Claremore: (918) 341-9336
Muskogee: (918)-687-2533
McAlester: (918) 423-5951
Durant: (580)-931-0333

Congressional District 3: Rep. Frank Lucas
D.C. 1-202-225-5565
Yukon: (405) 373-1958

Congressional District 4: Rep. Tom Cole
D.C. 1-202-225-6165
Lawton: (580) 357-2131

Congressional District 5: Rep. James Lankford
D.C. 1-202-225-2132
OKC: (405) 234-9900

** UPDATE II **

H.R. 325 passed the U.S. House on Wednesday afternoon, by a vote of 285 to 144. Republicans split 199-33 in favor, and Democrats went 86-111 against. Of Oklahoma's delegation, freshmen Reps. Bridenstine and Mullin joined other conservatives in voting against the measure. They deserve kudos for the right vote. 'No Budget, No Pay' is now headed to the U.S. Senate, where it seems likely to pass as well.

Book Review: Tom Coburn's 'The Debt Bomb'

Senator Tom Coburn versus Everyone Else in Washington

by Dustin Siggins

In The Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan To Stop Washington From Bankrupting America, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) explains how Washington's career politicians, staffers, and lobbyists have set the nation up for fiscal failure.  Pulling few punches, Coburn targets sacred cows of each party and explains that rather than being in gridlock (as the media claims is the case), Congress has spent the last several decades (and especially the last 15 years) working to expand influence and re-election capabilities regardless of party.

Opening with a story about how America's rising debt could cause first a financial, and then a military crisis by 2020, Coburn reminds readers that this country is only as powerful as its finances will allow it to be.  In this fictional-but-likely future, foreign investors decide in 2014 that America is no longer a viable financial investment.  Over a span of days, this new consensus works its way into the value of the dollar, sinking it by 50% and increasing inflation.  Riots become widespread, the National Guard is deployed, and the G-20 meets to tell the U.S. that tax rates will double, retirement ages will leap precipitously, and means-testing will be the order of the day on benefits.  Finally, in 2019 -- two years after employment finally drops from 24% -- China invades Taiwan and informs the U.S. that if we stop the invasion, the U.S. will lose both financially (as China dumps our debt) and militarily (as both nations perhaps engage in a nuclear exchange).

Unlike other authors, Coburn takes on the debt from a series of critical angles, not just partisan ones.  This is done in a way that breaks through the fog of D.C.-speak and explains in plain terms the corruption all too present in Washington.  The impacts of the debt on the unemployment rate, national security, retirement, social welfare, personal freedom, tax rates, energy reform, and morality each have portions of chapters (in some cases, whole chapters) dedicated to them.  Additionally, Coburn aims to show just how much smaller government could be if we just eliminated fraud/waste/abuse/duplicity from the federal government...as much as one-third, or over $1 trillion per year (nearly $3,900 for every American every year).  If nothing else, the disgust readers should have for their elected politicians is a victory in and of itself, and it should lead to a successive series of efforts by voters to term-limit members of Congress.

The most important reforms Coburn addresses are those related to duplication/oversight, military spending, taxes, and entitlements.  With an envious lack of ego, Coburn looks at the problem from the perspective of an outsider involved in the process rather than as an elitist insider who knows all the answers.  Does the senator have answers?  Yes.  Does he think his are the only ones?  Absolutely not.  While his own oversight reports and Back in Black solutions are regularly mentioned both in chapters and in an addendum, Coburn praises Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), among others, for truly working to find a way to defuse our debt bomb.

The inside baseball Coburn exposes should embarrass both members and their constituents.  Earmarks, personal discussions, and careerism are all brought to the fore, but nothing is more "inside baseball" than the debate that took place leading up to the debt ceiling compromise last August.  The utter dysfunction of Congress is laid bare in Coburn's descriptions of what happened.  Meeting after meeting and discussion after discussion led to a deal that not only didn't cut spending, but actually grew spending by $2 trillion over ten years...and still left our nation's credit rating downgraded.

(click "read more" for the rest of this review)

'In order to spend less...'

from TobyToons.com

Column: Pity the debt-paying generation

Pity the debt-paying generation

By Bill Beach and Dustin Siggins

The Heritage Foundation

The outlook for the Debt-Paying Generation - those young Americans on the hook for our monstrous national debt - keeps getting worse.

Take two developments in just in the last two months: First, the Congressional Budget Office released an update showing that since last year the amount of debt it expects America to carry (as a percentage of GDP) in 2035 has jumped significantly.

Second, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner each made it clear that they think cutting less than 10 percent of spending over the next 10 years is a responsible way to govern.

The CBO report continues a long series of annual warnings that the fiscal future is getting steadily grimmer: "Debt held by the public is now projected to grow even faster in the next decade under the alternative fiscal scenario than CBO projected last year. ... By 2021, it would exceed 100 percent of GDP, 10 percentage points higher than projected in 2010. In later years, debt would follow a path similar to what CBO projected last year, reaching almost 190 percent of GDP in 2035, effectively the same level as projected previously."

As columnist Peggy Noonan noted some months ago, part of the reason for the existence of the tea party is that compromise in Washington is often between moderates and liberals, not liberals and conservatives.

For example, the CBO said the initial phase of the Boehner compromise would take the debt per worker in 2021 from about $161,631 to about $156,324 - clearly, laughably inadequate. As one of us once wrote, "You can't balance the federal budget and stay inside today's policy lines. Rethink the lines, however, and you'll be amazed how quickly we could move toward fiscal sanity. It's all a matter of those tricky lines."

Thinking outside the lines is just why we are writing a book about the Debt-Paying Generation. It's also why Bill Beach was a lead author of a recent Heritage Foundation report on a plan to return to a balanced budget.

In that plan ("Saving the American Dream"), Heritage called for achieving permanent budget surpluses by 2021; pro-growth tax reform; and entitlement reform. While there is plenty of room for debating how we get to permanent total budget surpluses, the fact is that we need real solutions - and fast.

Heritage's plan is but one answer, but it is one that can work.

Unfortunately, except for rare exceptions such as Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., both of whom have plans that would balance the budget sooner than anyone else on Capitol Hill, much of Washington would rather pay attention to the latest Washington sex scandal than worry about the real threat that is America's growing national debt.

When it really comes down to it, the budget debate can be reduced to the following points:

1. Reform our immoral and inefficient tax code, perhaps by replacing it with a flat expenditure tax, such as Heritage proposed. A strong period of economic growth will be needed to help lift us out of our fiscal mess, and the flat expenditure tax frees the economy to grow at its potential while supplying government with the revenues it needs.

2. Cut spending. To start, basically anything ending with "Department" or "Administration" should be closely scrutinized for need and effectiveness. Doubtless hundreds of billions in outlays each year could be saved by reforming broken programs and eliminating those that simply don't work. Entitlements, of course, must be reformed.

3. Shrink the size of government employee rolls. Fully one-sixth of America's workers are employed by some level of government, and when one adds the millions of defense and other contractors into the mix, more than 30 million people are employed by tax dollars. These are dollars that, instead of expanding the economic pie or tax revenue are simply recycled. We support cutting 10 percent of all government employees or contractors, to start.

As James Agresti recently noted in The Daily Caller, the longer that Americans bury their collective heads in the sand, the more extreme solutions will have to be. Today's seniors and near-seniors could have supported minor increases in retirement ages; partial or full privatization; or any of a number of other options 20 years ago to entitlements that would have made Medicare and Social Security better off today and in the foreseeable future. They could have voted for politicians who wanted a fair tax code instead of one riddled with special-interest loopholes.

Instead, the status quo was largely kept in place. Now solutions must be drastic if we are to prevent the Debt-Paying Generation from bearing the consequences of the decisions of their parents and grandparents.


About the writers

William Beach is director of the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. Dustin Siggins is a former policy researcher in the Center for Data Analysis at Heritage. Readers may write to the authors in care of The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002; Web site: www.heritage.org. Information about Heritage's funding may be found at http://www.heritage.org/about/reports.cfm.

Coburn: Why I voted against the debt deal

Why I voted against the debt deal

by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D.

The good news out of the debt debate is that Washington is now debating how much we can cut instead of how much we can spend. The American people deserve all the credit for forcing that change. Unfortunately, it’s still all talk in Washington. This deal is a victory for politicians but a defeat for families.

In spite of what politicians on both sides are saying, this agreement does not cut any spending over 10 years. In fact, it increases discretionary spending by $830 billion.

I voted against this agreement because it does nothing to address the real drivers of our debt. It eliminates no program, consolidates no duplicative programs, cuts no tax earmarks and reforms no entitlement program. The specter of default or a credit downgrade will still hang over our economy after this deal becomes law.

Politicians on both sides are misleading the country by calling a slowdown in the growth rate of new spending a “cut.” Spending will increase at a time when real cuts are necessary to make us live within our means, repair our economy and preserve our credit rating.

It is true that next year there will be a genuine cut of $7 billion when discretionary spending drops from $1.05 trillion to $1.043 trillion. But with our government borrowing $4.5 billion a day, that $7 billion is enough to fund the government for about 36 hours. And after our day and a half of restraint, spending will increase $830 billion over 10 years.

Supporters say the real savings will come when the joint committee the deal empowers makes recommendations to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion (as we increase the debt limit by the same amount). But the enforcement mechanism designed to force these hard decisions — across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense programs — will never work. Congress will easily evade these caps. In the Senate, all it will take is 60 votes — the threshold for passing anything. Some have complained about defense cuts, but everyone in Washington knows those cuts can be avoided through supplemental or “emergency” spending bills.

I proudly served on the president’s debt commission and spent months negotiating with senators of both parties in the Gang of Six. But I took a break from the Gang of Six because we were not offering enough savings, especially in entitlements, to heal our economy. And the truth is that the joint committee is likely to be a step backward from the Gang of Six and the Bowles-Simpson commission.

I am the first to admit that, with this plan, the commission process in Washington has become a farce. The plan’s joint committee has been called a “super” committee because it is anything but.

For our country’s sake, I hope I am wrong. Nothing prevents the congressional committee from recommending deficit reduction far in excess of $1.2 trillion. For that to happen, however, both sides will have to sacrifice their sacred cows and embrace real entitlement reform and tax reform.

Experience has taught me that to achieve real savings, there is no substitute for being specific. In Washington, however, wide is the road that leads to pledges, commissions and caps, and narrow is the road that leads to cuts. That’s why I have targeted specific excesses such as the “Bridge to Nowhere” and the ethanol tax earmark. It’s why I recently released a 620-page report, “Back in Black,” that makes hundreds of recommendations and calls for $9 trillion in deficit reduction. Congress could spend a year eliminating no-brainer examples of waste and duplication, such as our government’s policy of directing unemployment benefits to millionaires.

I understand that Congress is not ready to accept $9 trillion in deficit reduction even though changes of that magnitude are necessary to heal our economy. Congressional leaders are probably correct that this is the best deal they could have gotten. The only recourse the people have, then, is to elect lawmakers who will produce better results.

I was among the first members of Congress to call for using the debt-limit debate as leverage to force spending cuts. I’m glad I did. Even though the cuts didn’t materialize, the debate informed the American people of the scope and magnitude of the problem.

The real debt crisis is not a debate that has been imposed on Washington by Tea Party activists. It is a crisis Washington has imposed on the American people through laziness, incompetence, dishonesty and political expediency. Politicians can talk all they want about how they did something to address the problem. But when the flaws of this plan become apparent, another change election will be coming.

U.S. Senator On Raising The Debt Ceiling

A while back, one U.S. Senator had this to say on the floor of the Senate about raising the debt ceiling:

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem. 

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.  

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion'' with a "T.'' That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion. 

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.  

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans; a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.  [. . .]

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.  

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit. 

I couldn't agree more.

Did I mention when this speech was given, and who made it?

March 16th, 2006.

Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois).

The Debt Ceiling

From Michelle Byte at GetRightOK.com:

The republicans in Congress keep talking politics as if we are still interested in it.  They have lost or are losing the party faithful. The conservative leadership, at least in OK, is sick of the politics and are not interested in the political ramifications of sticking it to the democrats/Obama because we are no longer certain that we will even have a country when the next election rolls around.  If we are playing politics and we KNOW the Senate will not pass this bill, why not make the "Boehner plan" a HUGE cutting bill?  Why not push through trillions upon trillions in cuts?  Take a chainsaw to this ridiculous federal budget.  Go big or go home.

The Boehner plan only guarantees a vote on the balanced budget amendment.  And we all know how much we can trust the guarantees of Congress...

The plan calls to reduce 1.8 trillion over 10 years, but we are increasing at a rate of 8 trillion a year, so this plan simply means that instead of increasing by 80 trillion over 10 years, we will increase just 78 trillion.

What we need are for our Republican leaders to just say "NO, we will NOT compromise." It is time to stand up for what is right, which is to live within the budget AND the bounds of the Constitution.

If you are cutting the spending that is causing us to run so close to the debt ceiling, why do you need to increase the debt ceiling?  Wouldn't it be wiser to just cut spending until it hurts?

The Republicans like to say how bad Obama's spending is, and indeed it is.  Under his administration, government has grown and spent at unprecedented levels. However, let's not forget who paved the way for him.  We overspent to a massive degree when Bush was in the White House, but I guess that was okay because he had an R next to his name.

They're saying that if nothing is done, the treasury would have to use incoming funds to pay the bills coming due, and that the money needing to go out is more than the money coming in.  I have an amazing idea.  I will put it in all caps so the idiots in Congress can read it easier:  CUT THE DIFFERENCE!!

If the president has to prioritize spending, let him be the one that decides not to pay Social Security.

I haven't posted anything on the debt ceiling yet, partly because I've been to busy with work to sit down and type something up, but also because this whole charade is sickening.

Congressional Democrats and Republicans is talking about "cuts". Well, let's get this straight: they are not talking cuts - they are still talking spending more than we take in, just to a slightly lesser degree.

$14,549,767,231,001.00

That's what the national debt was at 9:55am this morning. Congress needs to install the debt clock on the wall in the House and Senate chambers, and on every member's desk, and in their offices.

This is not a time for timid financial gimmicks. No 'pale pastels'. We need bold action. Now.