While talks between President Obama and Congressional leaders to lift the debt ceiling by August 2nd remain stalled, members of Congress are pursuing their own ideas.
Today, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) unveils his plan to cut the deficit by $9 trillion over the next decade. Senator Coburn was one of the “Gang of Six” senators working on a bipartisan budget-cutting deal, but he walked away from the negotiations in May to work on his own plan.
His plan to cut $9 trillion far outpaces any other proposal. President Obama wanted to cut the deficit by $4 trillion in his “grand bargain,” and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released a plan earlier this year that would have cut $6 trillion dollars.
However, Sen. Coburn doubts that his proposal will pass in the Senate. He told CBS's "Face the Nation" yesterday that he doesn't expect his fellow GOP Senators to approve of the defense department cuts and targeted tax increases built into his proposal.
Meanwhile Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell (KY), continue work on a plan initiated by Sen. McConnell that would include modest cuts to spending and would allow the President to raise the debt ceiling without the Republicans having to vote in favor of it.
Senator Reid announced today that the Senate will work weekends and will stay in session beyond its scheduled August 5th summer recess until the debt ceiling is lifted.
In the House, members will debate and vote on a Republican measure called the "Cut, Cap and Balance Act." It would raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, but it would be accompanied by a $111 billion cut from the 2012 budget, cap spending to under 20% in less than a decade, and it would require an amendment to the Constitution to balance the budget.
The White House put out a statement saying it "strongly opposes" the Republican measure and said the President would veto it. "Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility," a statement by the Office of Management and Budget read. However, history proves otherwise or we wouldn't be in this fix. Congress and the President has typically been unable to restrain themselves when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money. Anyone who opposes a balanced budget amendment, especially on the flimsy grounds stated by the White House, must be voted out of office as soon as possible. Being against a balanced budget is like being against apple pie and motherhood.
The House Rules Committee will debate the measure Monday evening.
House Democrats want to vote on a straight measure to raise the debt ceiling. “We hope we can have a grand bargain,” Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Friday, but she said it does not have to coincide with the debt limit
Monday, July 18, 2011
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott is out of her depth on budget matters
Dee Perez-Scott is out of her depth on budget matters
Dee Perez-Scott wrote,”As Republicans continue to pander to the Rich and demand more cuts (Medicare, Social Security) for the Middle Class, IF they continue to stonewall the President and push our country into a deeper Recession/Depression and refuse to Raise the Debt Ceiling, then the President should invoke the 14th Amendment and pay our Country's bills. True Americans stand behind our President.”
She uses the phrase "true Americans" but her readers will remember vividly how critical she was of those who used the term "real Americans. She doesn't get to decide who is and who is not a true or real American. Dee Perez-Scott, if she had any sense, would know that America will pay the interest on the national debt as its first priority. Everyone but she knows that. Next in line are Social Security and Medicare and Armed Services pay. Moreover, as Obama has already stated, he does not plan to resort to any sort of tricks such as invoking the 14th amendment. He understands that he has no basis for doing so as long as we have the resources to pay the interest on the national debt. Even if he did, only the House has the constitutional authority to appropriate money. If Obama tried to operate solely on the basis of more debt, that would surely seal his fate in 2012 as everyone begins to realize that every dollar of such debt has Obama written all over it.
It really takes two parties to stonewall anything. If the president and the democrats weren’t stonewalling, there would be no crisis. It makes no sense to raise the limit on a credit card when one is already deep in hock. In fact, ethical credit card companies would refuse to do so. China should let it be known that if the U.S. does not undertake austerity measures like those being imposed on Greece, it will cash in its U.S. bonds and refuse to buy any more. The who will finance the national debt?
If Dee understood the budget deficit and national debt, she would realize that even if the super rich were taxed at 100% that would not be enough to cure the problem. We have to cut expenditures and Medicare and Social Security are the only major budget items that have the capability of solving the problem. I am not in favor of drastic cuts in either of them but there will have to be some contribution from that quarter if there is to be any chance for our country to return to solvency. The proposed changes are modest: a small adjustment in the cost of living formula and an increase of the age for a full annuity to 67. I don’t like either one but, unlike Dee, I am being realistic.
In a recent article, ultra-liberal-progressive, Katrina vanden Heuvel said: "Invoking the 14th Amendment defuses the bomb Republicans have strapped to the hostage." By doing so, the President would end the debt ceiling negotiations and create another basis for his impeachment. The 14th Amendment says: “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned.” vanden Heuvel and others of her ilk should understand that no one is questioning the “validity of the public debt” and that includes the intra-governmental debt (like all the borrowing from the Social Security trust fund) which the Obama Administration and the Congress often conveniently overlook because it runs the national debt up to $120 trillion.
Katrina continued: In Freytag v. Commissioner (1991), the Supreme Court held that the president has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." The Supreme, the final arbiter of constitutionality, will have the final word.. "As a simple matter of constitutional logic, the president can refuse to enforce a statute he believes violates the Constitution," said Professor Barry Friedman of NYU Law School in a telephone interview with me. It is also unlikely that the action would be successfully challenged in court. Only Congress would have standing to sue, but doing so would require a joint resolution, something a Democratic-controlled Senate would almost certainly block." In other words, vanden Heuvel is suggesting that the President rather than the Supreme Court should determine the constitutionality of a statute. That would inflict such heavy damage to the concept of separation of powers that even the Democrats in the senate would hesitate to take that route. Instead the statesmen in both Houses should expedite the resolution and ask the court to give it immediate priority.
I do think the Republicans would be making a PR mistake by continuing to insist on no tax increases of any kind, direct or indirect. However, any tax increases should be limited to individuals rather than the businesses that we depend upon to create jobs. If they do so , we will stand behind the Republicans and toss Obama out of office next year.
Dee Perez-Scott wrote,”As Republicans continue to pander to the Rich and demand more cuts (Medicare, Social Security) for the Middle Class, IF they continue to stonewall the President and push our country into a deeper Recession/Depression and refuse to Raise the Debt Ceiling, then the President should invoke the 14th Amendment and pay our Country's bills. True Americans stand behind our President.”
She uses the phrase "true Americans" but her readers will remember vividly how critical she was of those who used the term "real Americans. She doesn't get to decide who is and who is not a true or real American. Dee Perez-Scott, if she had any sense, would know that America will pay the interest on the national debt as its first priority. Everyone but she knows that. Next in line are Social Security and Medicare and Armed Services pay. Moreover, as Obama has already stated, he does not plan to resort to any sort of tricks such as invoking the 14th amendment. He understands that he has no basis for doing so as long as we have the resources to pay the interest on the national debt. Even if he did, only the House has the constitutional authority to appropriate money. If Obama tried to operate solely on the basis of more debt, that would surely seal his fate in 2012 as everyone begins to realize that every dollar of such debt has Obama written all over it.
It really takes two parties to stonewall anything. If the president and the democrats weren’t stonewalling, there would be no crisis. It makes no sense to raise the limit on a credit card when one is already deep in hock. In fact, ethical credit card companies would refuse to do so. China should let it be known that if the U.S. does not undertake austerity measures like those being imposed on Greece, it will cash in its U.S. bonds and refuse to buy any more. The who will finance the national debt?
If Dee understood the budget deficit and national debt, she would realize that even if the super rich were taxed at 100% that would not be enough to cure the problem. We have to cut expenditures and Medicare and Social Security are the only major budget items that have the capability of solving the problem. I am not in favor of drastic cuts in either of them but there will have to be some contribution from that quarter if there is to be any chance for our country to return to solvency. The proposed changes are modest: a small adjustment in the cost of living formula and an increase of the age for a full annuity to 67. I don’t like either one but, unlike Dee, I am being realistic.
In a recent article, ultra-liberal-progressive, Katrina vanden Heuvel said: "Invoking the 14th Amendment defuses the bomb Republicans have strapped to the hostage." By doing so, the President would end the debt ceiling negotiations and create another basis for his impeachment. The 14th Amendment says: “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned.” vanden Heuvel and others of her ilk should understand that no one is questioning the “validity of the public debt” and that includes the intra-governmental debt (like all the borrowing from the Social Security trust fund) which the Obama Administration and the Congress often conveniently overlook because it runs the national debt up to $120 trillion.
Katrina continued: In Freytag v. Commissioner (1991), the Supreme Court held that the president has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." The Supreme, the final arbiter of constitutionality, will have the final word.. "As a simple matter of constitutional logic, the president can refuse to enforce a statute he believes violates the Constitution," said Professor Barry Friedman of NYU Law School in a telephone interview with me. It is also unlikely that the action would be successfully challenged in court. Only Congress would have standing to sue, but doing so would require a joint resolution, something a Democratic-controlled Senate would almost certainly block." In other words, vanden Heuvel is suggesting that the President rather than the Supreme Court should determine the constitutionality of a statute. That would inflict such heavy damage to the concept of separation of powers that even the Democrats in the senate would hesitate to take that route. Instead the statesmen in both Houses should expedite the resolution and ask the court to give it immediate priority.
I do think the Republicans would be making a PR mistake by continuing to insist on no tax increases of any kind, direct or indirect. However, any tax increases should be limited to individuals rather than the businesses that we depend upon to create jobs. If they do so , we will stand behind the Republicans and toss Obama out of office next year.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott: Obama is lying through his teeth about the national debt
Here's the real truth about our nation's debt crisis that
President Obama and Congress doesn't want you to know
about...
Our nation's true debt stands at a whopping $120
trillion -- making the much reported and debated $14.3
trillion look like chump change!
Here's what we've found. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, and as reported by the CATO Institute,
a just released new report shows that the federal
government's publicly held debt is set to explode to
101 percent of the GDP in just ten years!
More than the value of everything produced in the U.S!
Even worse, the CBO warns that unless substantive change
in our nation's current course is made, by 2035 our
debt could reach 190 percent of our GDP.
the CBO just wrote our nation's obituary!
According to the report, the media, Obama and his cronies
are only targeting "debt held by the public," and are all
but IGNORING "intragovernmental debt" or debt that the
federal government owes itself in the form of I.O.U.'s. The
New York Post likens this debt as "money you swiped from
your kid's piggy bank. It may not appear on your credit
report, but it's money that you still have to pay back."
And finally, there's "implicit debt," -- UNFUNDED obligations
to programs like Social Security and Medicare.
All totaled, it exceeds $120 trillion.
So while Obama and Congress put on a show for the cameras
and pontificate about "staying in town until we get this
done," they aren't even discussing the real mountain of
debt that is looming overhead and threatening to destroy
our nation!
No. This is just a game to them, and we are being played
as fools.
The CBO said the problem cannot be fixed simply by cutting
"fraud, waste and abuse" and raising taxes. Instead, they
said it can only be fixed by a dramatic REDUCTION IN SPENDING.
President Obama and Congress doesn't want you to know
about...
Our nation's true debt stands at a whopping $120
trillion -- making the much reported and debated $14.3
trillion look like chump change!
Here's what we've found. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, and as reported by the CATO Institute,
a just released new report shows that the federal
government's publicly held debt is set to explode to
101 percent of the GDP in just ten years!
More than the value of everything produced in the U.S!
Even worse, the CBO warns that unless substantive change
in our nation's current course is made, by 2035 our
debt could reach 190 percent of our GDP.
the CBO just wrote our nation's obituary!
According to the report, the media, Obama and his cronies
are only targeting "debt held by the public," and are all
but IGNORING "intragovernmental debt" or debt that the
federal government owes itself in the form of I.O.U.'s. The
New York Post likens this debt as "money you swiped from
your kid's piggy bank. It may not appear on your credit
report, but it's money that you still have to pay back."
And finally, there's "implicit debt," -- UNFUNDED obligations
to programs like Social Security and Medicare.
All totaled, it exceeds $120 trillion.
So while Obama and Congress put on a show for the cameras
and pontificate about "staying in town until we get this
done," they aren't even discussing the real mountain of
debt that is looming overhead and threatening to destroy
our nation!
No. This is just a game to them, and we are being played
as fools.
The CBO said the problem cannot be fixed simply by cutting
"fraud, waste and abuse" and raising taxes. Instead, they
said it can only be fixed by a dramatic REDUCTION IN SPENDING.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)