« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Conservative Leaders: The Time to Fight is Now

The following is a joint op-ed from the leaders of Heritage Action, Club for Growth, and Family Research Council published earlier today in Politico.

This Monday, President Obama again asserted that the country would “default” if Congress did not raise the debt limit. “The full and faith and credit of the United States is not a bargaining chip,” he said at a press conference. This is of course untrue — we have enough funds to service our debt and the only risk to our credit is the president’s demagoguery and scare-mongering.

As even journalists pointed out during his press conference, Obama is simply refusing to negotiate. Rather than enter discussions about cutting the excessive spending that has driven $16 trillion in debt, he instead castigated the fiscally prudent with ad hominems like “irresponsible and absurd.” At one point he said the Republican Party didn’t care whether “seniors have decent health care … children have enough to eat.”

All this obfuscation hides the real issue. When approaching this debt ceiling increase, there appear to be only two options on the table: balance now by refusing to raise the ceiling or balance never by raising it and continuing the status quo. The former would be difficult to absorb but the latter guarantees perpetual decline and a future economic Greece-like calamity.

Today our three organizations will join others in the conservative movement to call on the U.S. Congress to stop the madness and put a third, “balanced” option on the table.

Very simply, we can quickly jump-start our economy and improve the lives of millions of Americans by insisting that Washington not raise the debt ceiling unless our nation gets on a path to a balanced budget within 10 years that stays balanced.

Yes, starting down a path towards balance will require looking through the budget. What mostly drives our trillion-dollar deficit and our $16 trillion debt are unfunded entitlement promises. But getting back to balanced spending is not the only reason to reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; we either reform these programs, crush future taxpayers with higher taxes, or erode the economic security of future generations.

Entitlements should not bear all the weight of spending restraint; discretionary spending, both in ineffective stimulus bills and in each year’s spending bills, has ballooned. Just as American families spend less to make the checkbooks balance, the federal government must also show some restraint and return to reasonable levels.

While we as fiscal, social and foreign policy conservatives have differing priorities, we can certainly find immediate savings in the discretionary budget. Programs that benefit only a few – agriculture subsidies, green energy handouts, Planned Parenthood, etc. – have at least the appearance of cronyism and special interest handouts. Savings, starting in year one, would have a major impact in getting on a path towards balance by driving down interest costs in the future.

Ten years is not a random horizon, but the traditional congressional budget window. Nor is this demand the result of mere whimsy—it is a moral obligation. No American should have to tell an 8-year-old child that we cannot get our nation’s house in order by the time she goes to college. There are many ways to get to a balanced budget and both Democrats and Republicans have an obligation to explain what path they will choose.

During the last budget debate, senators put forward three budgets that balanced, including one from Utah Sen. Mike Lee that was based on the Heritage Foundation’s own plan. With a few tweaks, we are convinced that Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget could also balance in ten years.

And they all balanced without raising taxes. The president got his tax increase — the debt deal should not further raise taxes and they should never exceed the historic average of 18.5 percent of GDP

Compare that to the recent deficit deal Congress passed and the president signed — 13 new taxes were part of that deal and spending went up by $47 billion. We can do better.

We have time to make these goals realities. The president ought to stop scaring people with talk of default. Not only does the federal government have the funds necessary to service our debt from revenues that will continue to come in, the executive branch has a constitutional obligation to do so.

On August 2, 2011, the president demanded and won a $2.1 trillion increase in our nation’s statutory debt ceiling. Some 518 days later, our nation hit its $16.394 trillion debt ceiling. During that time, we as a nation accumulated nearly $47,000 of debt every second. This has to stop.

Balancing never is the height of irresponsibility. The only question is whether America gets on a path to balance through an orderly process or whether the debt limit needs to be used to force the president to address this moral obligation.

Michael Needham is Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Action for America; Tony Perkins is President of the Family Research Council; Chris Chocola is President of the Club for Growth.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • PubliusII

    The problem the Republicans have is: How to reframe the debate so that the choice before the country is about the President’s refusal to cut spending.

  • conservitas

    The same Republicans who crossed the aisle for the fiscal cliff deal are going to cross it for the debt ceiling deal — several have already announced that they will do so. This is shaping up to be every bit the non-event the Boehner election turned out to be.

    We’re in a new world where the Establishment Republicans, safely in their Establishment seats bought and paid for with Establishment lobbying dollars, are simply going to join with the Dems on critical legislation and ignore the rest of the party.

    BTW, this is not just going on in the House. If you haven’t been watching, McConnell, et al., are quietly acquiescing to changes to the fillibuster rules so that it would take 40 Senators together to block legislation from proceeding to a vote, and no longer could one single Senator (you might as well insert “Rand Paul” here, because that’s who the leaders in both parties are thinking of) maintain a fillibuster threat.

    It’s a war between the Establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans, and procedurally the Establishment Republicans are quietly gaining the ground they think they need to gain — apparently presuming that they will be safe in 2014 (and in many districts, they will be due to voter apathy).

    Just the facts, Ma’am.

  • http://conservativemormonmom.blogspot.com ew88

    Interesting. I just read another editorial by Mike Flynn over at Breitbart saying the opposite. The debt ceiling debate is not the time to fight because Obama is poised to delay welfare, maybe tax return checks and make sure that no Republican is ever elected again. The sequester should not be a battle either – they should just allow it to happen. Flynn is recommending that they fight a budget battle. I don’t know how you can force the Dems into making a budget in the first place, but it does seem that the debt ceiling debate will cost us more than we gain, as conservatives.
    I have mixed opinions on the subject. But if the GOP does allow default, won’t that mean havoc in the economy, though we’d finally get down to cutting spending for reals?

  • johnCV

    So because the enemy will use an slimy, underhanded tactic that we would never use ourselves, we should pre-emtively surrender.
    Save our ‘fight’ for the budget battle, huh? Like the budget we have not passed in 4 years?

    Pure genius.

  • hertfordkc

    Would someone please explain to me how the Dems get a pass on always saying the SS and welfare checks and entitlements will be cut when the Postal Service, the EPA, the DOE, … could be shut down to keep us under the debt limit?

  • loganyung

    The only way to address this without being horribly demagogued to death is to implement the SLIM Act (Start Limiting Increases Monthly), whereby you put in a 5 or 10 year plan that increase the debt ceiling monthly, but the monthly increases decrease by a fixed percentage over time. This is a long-term plan, not a special authorization every month, i.e. the increases are baked into the plan, and this is a one-time authorization.

    If the deficit for 2013 is projected to be $1T ($83K/month), then, the first month, the increase in the debt ceiling is $83B. The next month will be, say, 2.5% less, or $80.93B. The next month, another 2.5% less, or $78.9B. The next month, $76.93B. This leads to decreasing yearly deficits of $869B (not $1T), $642B, $474B, $350B, $258B, and so on. If you don’t like these numbers, then, increase the 2.5% to 3% or 3.5%. The debt ceiling increases drop off pretty quickly.

    The reason that this can’t be easily demagogued is that Obama has said that he wants to reduce the deficit. This forces that, but, doesn’t dictate the means. If an agreement can’t be met, it’s not a cliff, the administration has to either find a couple of billion dollars to cut, or has to go begging for a couple of more billion dollars, where he’ll look foolish. That’s a win-win for Conservatives.

    The House needs to pass this bill (again, pick your percentage decrease), and stick to the position. As Obama screams for more money, and screams about default, this bill will be sitting there, and it has what he asked for, a long-term and predictable plan for debt ceiling increases. If he says it’s not enough money, then he has to explain why perpetual $1T deficits are required. If Obama is right, and his tax increases cause an explosion of economic growth (groan) and an increase in revenues to the government, then, this plan matches that scenario very well.

  • rosenstern

    I agree MHC – I am concerned about unintended consequences of not raising the debt ceiling. There are a lot of people on both sides talking in absolute certainties and I just do not think we really know what happens. Absolutely willing to shut down the government on the CR and sequester milestones.

  • Notre Droite

    I agree completely. The debt ceiling is the best mechanic for requiring the spending cuts we need because there is no way to circumvent it. We’ll immediately balance the budget and finally unlock all the economic growth that our deficit is holding back. Far from any sort of financial collapse, our economy will rebound immediately, Obama will be exposed as the charlatan he is, and I predict a sweep in the 2014 elections for true conservatives.

  • investprosgroup

    I have notice that for our “leadership” team the time to fight is: Never.

  • investprosgroup

    Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • investprosgroup

    Is now or never.

  • investprosgroup

    You can win by losing.

  • red_oakster

    Finally, a proposal of some kind. While I think we’ll need to pass different versions with different lengths of time and different linkages, pass something and move it over to the other body. Here’s hoping the GOP retreat achieves a united strategy. If Boehner is smart, he will designate a team including Hensarling, Price, and Ryan and let Obama and Reid negotiate with them. But only after something is passed through regular order.

  • commonsenseobserver

    There should be another component as well: the passage of Sen. Toomey’s Full Faith and Credit Act.

  • DerKrieger

    Screw Obama and negotiating with him. For what do we need to negotiate? If Congress refuses to raise the credit card limit then Obama will be forced to only spend an amount equal to tax receipts. Presto! Spending cuts without having to do anything but refusing to negotiate with Nero. The GOP are the ones holding all the cards. All team Obama has is the media and his lies.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    No. Jujitsu is the correct approach.

    When an opponent has a tactic based on your expected response, the WRONG thing is to do the expected response. Obama has set up the political crisis to be a blame-Republican situation. It will backfire to do the expected thing and threaten a shutdown. It is also wrong to surrender.

    hmmm. There is a third way. Jujitsu. Use his strengths against him and do the unexpected to deflate his move. IMHO, the solution is to give the President a SHORT-TERM debt ceiling increase, with the invitation to increase it ONLY WHEN agreement on spending is achieved.

    In effect, we are responding to Obama’s ‘no negotiation’ with a ‘fine, short term increase only’. This is good for Republicans because there are OTHER deadlines we can use for leverage. … we dont have the rest of FY 13 spending worked out; there is a sequester coming up. FY14 budgets not even proposed…. and of course any claim to do anything about entitlements? Where’s the President’s proposals?

    In political terms, this is about getting Obama and the Democrats to own up to their own failure to be fiscally irresponsible.

    The choice of “surrender” or “shutdown” is a false one. Say:
    “Since the Democrats have no plan to get us into balance and no plan for long-term budget and entitlement reform, it is irresponsible and wrong to write a blank check on future deficits and debt. But we can extend this a little further while we get our fiscal house in order.”

    Will this be just a prelude to giving in further? Perhaps and perhaps not. The risk/problem with usin the debt ceiling as leverage has always been the market risks of playing with debt, which is DIFFERENT from simply not sending out checks and furloughing people. Rest assured the stock market will not go down 10% just because there is a govt shutdown (go check on what happened in 1995/1996 on that. The risk in the debt ceiling has always been about whether the Govt stops paying debt interest. (That said, its not like 10 year treasuries ever cratered during 2011 debacle).

    In short, we should NOT have debt ceiling induced shutdowns, but instead use lack-of-budget shutdowns. Recall that the only way to fix the latter is to pass spending bills. And only when the Senate has a budget can there be an agreement/deal.

    A $200 billion debt ceiling increase is about 2 months worth, so it means marching up the hill every 2 months. If/when Obama and the Democrats get tired of this, they can always demand something else, when they do … say ” OH! SO YOU WANT TO NEGOTIATE? Fine …” … and let the negotiations begin.

  • mcsul

    Hey Hertfordkc.

    I think that the scale of the problem is something that we don’t always appreciate. for the 2013 budget (just under $3B expected revenue, just under $4B expected spending), imagine these cuts:

    - 50% cuts to all non-defense discretionary spending

    - 25% cuts to defense

    - 25% cuts to social security

    - 25% cuts to medicare

    At that point, you’re *still* just short of balancing the budget. The real problem is that, of those four buckets, the non-defense discretionary stuff is the smallest bucket. You’d need to cut *everything* in that category a bit less than twice over to balance the budget, and at that point we don’t have air traffic control, port inspections, weather reports, or any of the useful stuff happening.

    When we say “big government”, it’s easy to make the mistake of thinking that means that the government itself is big in terms of people, etc… Our government is one of the smallest (proportionately) compared to other advanced economies once you take out defense. We should be saying “intrusive government” because it makes itself felt in business and daily life out of proportion with it’s size and it imposes costs that others (like business owners) have to bear.

    At least half the government budget doesn’t go to the government at all. It just gets passed straight through to people who get benefits like ss or medicare. There’s just not enough money in the government part of government to balance the budget before we start losing stuff like basic defense and basic infrastructure.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    The problem is not IF to fight, it is HOW to fight.

    Some wisdom here:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337805/brinking-games-daniel-foster

    “President Obama is not the enemy. Harry Reid is.”

    The challenge is not Obama’s signature. If nothing comes out of Congress, Obama is clean. if it got through the Congress, divided as it is, Obama better sign it or its all on him. He has used Senator Reid as a shield. ALL the ‘deals’ ended up being written by Reid. He’s the roadblock and the GOP needs to make that obvious…

    Instead of Obama + Reid vs Boehner… we need to make it Boehner + McConnell vs Reid. Better odds.

    The House GOP has to do something, but what? Best solution – put a SMALL debt ceiling increase through the House. $200 billion. Enough for 2 months. Too small? Fine, lets see the Senate version. They either pass what the House did or do better. Once they pass something different, its time to open negotiations… And so it goes.

  • testing

    We would do well to stop treating Social Security as Entitlements and especially stop calling them Entitlements. It insults me and the hundreds of millions of other hardworking women and men of America who were forced to contribute into these programs. Our employers were also required to contribute an equal amount. Our take home pay was reduced for over 30 years in two ways because of these programs. First by the direct deduction and secondarily, since our employers had to contribute an equal amount, their profits were reduced which probably reduced our wages. Social Security is viewed by most Americans as a type of Federal pension program and Medicare as a insurance plan(I know they are not legally, they are just a taxes). In fact Social Security is functionally an involuntary poorly managed and underfunded pension type plan which is funded by forced contributions from future recipients; it has the added “feature” of giving a poorer return the more you contribute. Similarly Medicare is functionally an involuntary poorly managed and underfunded medical type plan which is funded by forced contributions from future recipients; I realize it must be supplemented by other taxes or will have to be in the near future. Like them or not they are here to stay. Let’s start being smart and as conservatives and separate these two CONTRIBUTION FUNDED programs from the other Entitlements where the likely beneficiaries have not contributed much, and may not ever contribute but will receive the benefits just the same. I am involved with the disabled for whom these programs are crucial. I also know people who just take advantage of the system. The Social Security and Medicare I hope to receive in a few years is a benefit I feel I paid for by my “forced contributions”. Its not an “entitlement” its getting something I paid for. We Republicans and conservatives should split these 2 programs off from other budget discussions and become the champions of sustainability of these programs apart from the rest of government. I think most of the other forced contributors to SS and Medicare are like me and would appreciate the recognition that these programs are for working people and would be willing to listen to arguments concerning how to keep these programs going long term and who pays -us or our children or grand children.

  • smilingdutch

    Defaulting is simply irresponsible. Your arguments don’t add-up.

  • smilingdutch

    Communication is the weak link.

  • smilingdutch

    Shutdown government, go ahead. Someone will be blamed for it. Grandma and Grandpa will know the GOP held their check hostage. Go ahead.

  • johnCV

    You’re a prog so I’ll type slowly. Defaulting is when we don’t pay our debt. At the moment, that’s about 30 billion/month. Tax revenues run about 230 billion/month. The only way to default is if your saviour decides to stiff our creditors. That’s it. Debt is not the same as spending. And before your begin bleating about SS, it’s already been adjudicated that the US Gov’t can, at its discretion, pay or not pay. The citizenry should have no expectation or any payment, because it’s a tax.
    Now as to my ‘arguments’ not adding up, I think 0bama has pretty much outed himself as an anti-American leftist through deed, speech and association.
    You prove otherwise.

  • Bill S

    unlike johnCV, I’ll type fast.

    Bye.