« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Secretary Geithner, spending is not a problem of the past

By: Senator Jim DeMint (Diary)  |  May 18th, 2011 at 09:43 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Unless we reverse course from the Obama Administration’s endless borrowing and spending policies, economic collapse is a certainty.

If our entitlement programs are not reformed, they will go broke and break their promises to millions of seniors, disabled and needy Americans. If the government never stops spending more than it takes in, it will go bankrupt. And, if liberals are successful in passing massive tax increases to continue their spending spree, millions more jobs will be destroyed, companies will ship new investments overseas, and our economy will be crippled for years to come.

None of these outcomes are desirable and all of them are preventable.

Yet, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s address at the Harvard Club, just like many statements and speeches from other members of the administration that have preceded it, displayed willful ignorance of these facts. Just as President Obama has done on numerous occasions, Geithner is trying to solve a real problem with new rhetorical spin while advocating for more of the same policies that caused the problem in the first place.

After spending months warning that a financial catastrophe would occur if the debt limit is not increased, the Treasury Secretary has adopted another talking point. Geithner’s new line is that the debt limit “relates only to commitments we have made in the past,” as if the Obama Administration played no role in reaching it and has no obligation to prevent it from happening again.

The Obama Administration forfeits its credibility on fiscal matters by resisting responsibility for the bills it has incurred for the bailouts, the failed stimulus bill, onerous financial regulations, and ObamaCare. Blaming the past for today’s problems is not a plan to solve them, it’s an excuse not to.

Spending is the biggest threat we confront today. The government currently borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends and will run a deficit of $1.6 trillion for fiscal year 2012.

The $14 trillion debt was not created overnight, but has risen dramatically on President Obama’s watch. The Obama Administration has contributed more than $3.6 trillion to it in the three short years Obama has been president.

As Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Geithner has asked Congress to raise the debt limit three times and has never supported a plan to pay off that debt.
In fact, Geithner called for continued expansion of government spending and more taxes in his remarks. Instead advocating for any reforms to government health care and retirement programs, he said the government must only “reduce the rate of growth in spending.”

Secretary Geithner should use his limited time to help force deep, structural reforms to the way the government spends money rather than asking to put more money on a new credit card.

All Senate Republicans support passage of a balanced budget amendment. Every state except for Vermont is required to balance its books, and the federal government should, too. Geithner should be one of the top supporters of the balanced budget amendment; it would mean he’d never have to ask Congress for a debt ceiling increase again.

Since Democrats haven’t bothered to offer a single serious proposal to balance our budget, Geithner should also examine the numerous budget proposals that Republicans have offered. In just the last few months, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul released a plan to balance the budget in five years. Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey has authored a budget to balance it in nine years. House Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio and I have promoted the Spending Reduction Act that would trim $2.5 trillion over the next ten years from the budget. And, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has written the “Path to Prosperity” to save our entitlement programs.

The ideas are out there, they’re just not coming from President Obama’s party. Democrats have not passed a budget in more than two years and are stunningly non-committal when it comes to any ideas to reduce government spending. It seems as if their logic is that if they never support any of these ideas, they will never have to cut spending.

By refusing to participate in these discussions, they are precipitating disaster. Without spending cuts and real entitlement reform the glaring economic reality of gaping deficits will eventually force federal benefits to be severely rationed or taxes to be significantly increased.

Giving the Obama Administration a new no-strings-attached credit card to continue their endless borrow and spend policies only brings doomsday closer. And, that’s not a problem of the past. It’s the most serious and overwhelming threat to our future today.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • belcatar

    Your constituents are fortunate to have a Senator who sees things as they really are. Please keep up the fight! You might want to take Senators Collins and Snowe aside and have a talk with them. They could use a dose of reality!

  • johnt

    Geithner adds new meaning to money and spending, old debt bad, our willful debt good, this equals, “blame someone else”. A real manly approach and totally appropriate to this miserable Administration. Wasn’t the sky about to fall if the debt limit wasn’t raised prior to expiration ? Alternative and sensible voices were heard and that canard went the way of Hope and Change. Now it’s August that is end of America time, the media tries so hard for Obama & the Democrats.
    Keep up the good work Senator, who your enemies are is a compliment to your character and sound principles.

  • http://next2cents.com gringobob

    after the rhetoric, you will be screwed one more time, of course ……

    http://www.next2cents.com/18may11.php

    • renny

      of the Middle East, some of whom do not really have a working gov’t at the moment, others of whom have leadership actively anti-American, and discounting that we send some Muslims countries TRILLIONS for oil we could be developing and producing here.

      How can Congress stop this next boondoggle? Who has the checkbook that can be locked up in a safe? Do exec. orders automatically produce funds to back them?

      I am beginning to think when they shot OBL, they shot the wrong o.

      • 4suramcan

        Renny

  • drfredc

    Anyone know then the SNL skit with Suzie Orman lecturing the Spendocrats and GOP Losership to cut up their federal spending credit cards is going to broadcast? What, never been taped? Is that a political statement on the SNL writers? Opps…

    Maybe it will show up on the Onion Network?

    • jacket06

      I like to think that there are more voters in this country who believe in, and live those principles upon which this country was founded. If this be so, we have the resources to throw those Elitist Bums out of National Leadership and government – those in the 60′s who danced naked in the parks, smoked pot, and sang Gum-By-Ya who now run this great country that once was great. If this be true but we fail to act, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If this be not true, then we are doomed. Recall that the great Roman Empire failed because of internal corruption of the Roman Senate (the Roman government). If we do don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it!

  • thewritejerry

    …if the past commitments Geithner refers to are the huge entitlement programs started by FDR and LBJ. That certainly is a large percentage of the current debt problem. But for Geithner to even try to imply that the policies of the current administration are not also part of the debt problem… well, only the mind of a knowing and willing tax cheat could twist the truth quite like that!

  • jstjoan

    Section 1311(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), enacts an UNLIMITED Obamacare implementation slush fund.

    It appropriates ??any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated? to the Secretary of HHS to be used for implementation of Obamacare.

    As soon as the debt ceiling is raised, those funds then become available to President Obama via Kathleen Sebelius at HHS to do whatever he wishes in the name of Obamacare.

    The House has repealed this by passing H.R. 1213 but, of course, it will go nowhere in the Senate.

    The Debt cceiling MUST NOT be raised.

  • gawken

    Senator..keep up the good work. God bless you.

    If I may suggest, in addition to requiring dollar for dollar spending cuts, (immediately, not years down the road) in return for an increase in the debt ceiling, the Senate GOP should require the Dems to introduce a budget in advance of ANY negotiation on the debt ceiling..otherwise, you have no base line to pin them to..

  • wennejunk

    A good crisis is a shame to waste. If there is no crisis, pick an impending one and then nudge it along until it boils over.

  • glaucon

    Thanks, Senator DeMint, Keep fighting for fiscal sanity up there, someone needs to!

  • ag8tor

    someone else’s fault. This admistration will NEVER take responsibilty for any of the problems we now face. The 2012 campaign will be full of blaming Bush, Reagan, Cheney or whomever they can come up with. This sleazy bunch will continue to blame and at the same time continue to get a pass on anything that didn’t go right during this 4 years. I’m sure Geithner blamed his accountant for not filing his taxes. Get ready to hear this tired old rhetoric ad nauseum for the next two years. These guttless bast***s won’t accept blame for anything even when it’s been proven.

  • kestrel

    In appreciation of your ongoing work, and being cognizant of the grief that you regularly receive, I will read Mr. Geithner’s speech at your behest.

    On the debt ceiling, I’d like to make a suggestion that is born of my trying to reconcile myself to this proposal. As background, please know that I respect Mr. Horowitz, so I tried to be open-minded about what he advocates, but my reaction was ambivalent to negative, and it solidified into ?NO? without even a night’s sleep. Thinking about why this was so, and even against what I hoped for, led me me to the awful conclusion that Congress does not even remotely understand what ?low credibility? means, and they will not understand it unless they realize that serious people are willing to go through a potentially hellish national experience in order to keep this government’s hands completely tied.

    Our national debt and deficit spending are appalling, and I can’t describe to you how alien the officials appear who continue talking about a ?clean debt-ceiling bill.? Only in Washington, D.C. could there be any sane person who would would even consider voting for a new, no-strings-attached credit card for this government. Congress should not assume that citizens who say ?don’t raise the debt ceiling? are speaking in ignorance. Most people understand that there will be some potentially serious economic consequences to the decision. I do not doubt that many also believe as I do, that these potentially drastic consequences are actually preferable to any alternatives that we can see.

    One source I have consulted is here. I will put an excerpt from the subsection, ?How would Credit Markets React?? at the bottom of this comment.

    Congress’s lack of credibility is not just a Democrat problem. I understand why some Republicans voted to pass the largest-in-history, 2011 budget; and I particularly have mercy for some of the freshmen who voted for it, but who have, in general, shown good faith. But the continuing resolutions and their unavoidable controversy have made a very negative impression on me. So, please, I am asking you, please do not let there be any irresponsibility, avoidance or deception in the way the debt ceiling is handled. If there is, Republicans in particular will be tarred and feathered personally (electorally) by my own hands. If any among you fear Obama’s ability to mobilize teenagers for elections, please let that person rile the US citizenry with the big, debt-ceiling stick to obtain a corrective experience.

    (Guess what? Even my own hair-pulling years of parenthood against the cultural tide have suddenly blossomed into two brand-new, post-2010 conservative voters! I’ll be darned.)

    My suggestion is that Congress and the president need to do something very concrete and fiscally responsible FIRST ? BEFORE voting on the debt ceiling ?- to prove their credibility to even ADDRESS possibly raising the ceiling. I suggest that this action consist of passing and signing the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). This seems like it should be doable, partly because the BBA already has bipartisan support, and also because of the lag in implementation due to the ratification process, and the fact that it does not go into effect until five years after being ratified. (Why is this? It kinda stinks.) Pardon the cynicism, but this amendment should be right up Congress’s alley, with its potential for backers to receive immediate glory while postponing the hard work for others to do later. (Not directed at you, Sir.) I am 100% serious about this idea, and think it is a good step toward a solution on the issue of raising the debt ceiling.

    Thank you for reading this, and for your costly, ongoing courage. God bless you.
    kestrel

    If the federal government were forced to operate indefinitely at the current debt limit, the early reaction in credit markets could be unfavorable… The uncertainty surrounding how the federal government would operate if it were unable to issue debt would likely rattle markets initially, leading to adverse movements in interest rates and the dollar exchange rate.

    The news would not be all grim, however, as the passage of time probably would make clear. As noted, the Treasury Department would surely affirm that all interest payments on government debt would be made, thus reassuring bond holders. While spending cuts required to align total spending with revenues would be deep, triggering a huge political brouhaha, from the credit markets? perspective the overarching consideration would be that a government previously bent on issuing destabilizing amounts of debt would be running an enforced balanced budget. Once the novelty wore off?and how long this would take is uncertain? markets ultimately might see the forced austerity as beneficial, especially if they concluded that the result would be congressional action to put the government, after decades of endless spending and borrowing, on a sound financial footing.