« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Do Republicans Care About the Deficit or Not?

Republicans who seek our support during an election cycle declare emphatically that they will deal with the deficit upon being elected.  Once elected, however, they far too often evince nothing but apathy towards efforts to solve our budget crisis.  Worse yet, they even work assiduously to create new deficits.

Ever since Republicans won control of the House in 2010, instead of looking for spending cuts to offset existing deficits, they are constantly looking for ways to create new deficits, albeit with the fervent pledge to offset those new deficits.  Yesterday, several lawmakers showed us just how indifferent they are to deficit spending.

Commenting on concerns of deficit spending, John Mica, the author of the House highway bill, offered this caviler response: “Honestly I don’t pay that much attention to the financing portion because it’s not mine. But they’ve promised to find ways to fund this and so far they’ve kept their word.  It will be done. It will pass. Then I will say Amen.”

Yes, we understand that Mica is Chairman of the Transportation Committee, not Ways and Means or Appropriations.  But does he really regard the cost as such an ancillary footnote to the bill that he need not consider it when drafting the underlying bill?

On the Senate side, Politico asked Senator Thune what he thought of their version of the highway bill:

“I think by and large if they want to get an extension of this for two years, rather than doing these short-term extensions, this is probably the best shot we have,” Thune said. Is it your sense the bill will pass? “I think so. I shouldn’t probably say that,” Thune said. “The Finance Committee, if they tweak the offsets a little bit, you know it probably picks up a considerable number of Republicans and I think a lot of Democrats.”

Yeah, let’s just pass this bill, which overspends its revenue source by 43%; we’ll tweak it a little here and there to make up the difference.

We are witnessing the same thing with the extenders package.  Let’s put aside the payroll tax cut for a moment.  There is an intra-conservative debate over whether this sort of “stimulus” tax cut should require offsets or not.  Nevertheless, we all agree that the increased spending on UI and Medicare doc fix should be offset with other spending cuts.  The point of cutting the payroll tax loose from the rest of the package was so Republicans can unilaterally pass the payroll tax cut, while refusing to spend more on UI and doc fix unless they are completely offset.  Yet, Republicans are agreeing to a conference report that will fill in that 10-month $50 billion deficit with a patchwork of offsets over 10 years.  Spend now; pay later.

[As an aside, they are also planning to vote for the conference report tomorrow, a violation of that pesky little pledge to post all legislation 72 hours before consideration on the floor.  Because this is a conference report, any such point of order against the bill offered by a conservative will be waived.]

The voters did not elect Republicans to propagate this “spend now, pay later” mentality.  They elected Republicans to end this credulous form of governance.  If these Republicans will not exercise their mandate, they’ll need to be replaced with a better crop.  It’s that simple.

Cross-posted From The Madison Project

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    The leadership of the Republican Party clearly put political expedience over ideals on this one. Is there any doubt?

    Between this and the current crop of Presidential candidates…not much to be optimistic on for conservatives right now.

    • out4tea

      What say we just pass Obama’s Budget and get it over with? I’ve been watching this for far too long. Maybe in a couple of generations the slaves will revolt and our great grandchildren’s great grandchildren will unearth our history, a copy of the Constitution and discover a way to properly employ and preserve it in an enduring civilization.

    • Flagstaff

      why is that bad?

      “Political” implies “done in order to get elected.”

      If we don’t win elections, who do you think does?

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        addicted to the entitlements, from whence any meaningful cuts must come. The problem in America is the people as constituted after 70 years of welfare statism …

    • mirac777

      Optimistic about right now, see as we are being driven off the Greek-style deby cliff by irresponsible con artists that continue the debt-spending unabated. I couldn’t believe what transpired in the tax cut ext. “deal” and wrote up this article which relates to the earlier request that the House GOP pass the clean bill Boehner said he hoped to pass.( which was published here at RedSate)

      http://conservativedailynews.com/2012/02/progressive-tax-cut-extension-deal-reached/

      “Load up the Chevy volt with all the big government IOU’s, and hope for a tailwind, because debt-cliff plunge here we come.”

  • carmen

    Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are a HUGE problem… If we don’t root them out, winning the White House simply won’t matter.

    The same is true for McConnell in the Senate (I’d add McCain here, but he just won re-election, and is done after this term…)…

    This is going to be a long road to hoe… The GOP leadership is weak, witless, spineless and impotent. It’s absolutely frightening.

    • Bobcat51

      ..are damaging the Republican party with their weakness, These guys had a wonderful opportunity following the 2010 election to move up a gear or two with the Conservative message yet they wimp out at every bump in the road. A Silent Speaker is no use to anyone on our side.

      • greyeagle

        It is a little hard for the Republicans to exert much control, when they only control the House. Reid is in control of Senate and won’t bring bills up for a vote and Obama won’t sign them. The House has passed a lot of Legislation, but it is gone nowhere because of Reid and Obama.

        • davesinsanantonio

          except for Boehner caving in at every opportunity.

          You either fight for correct principles, or you get defeated by incorrect principles. Compromising to get a bad bill passed because you think “we need to pass something” is at the root of all the political problems were are wallowing in. Refusing to pass bad bills is the start of the healing process. Rescinding bad bills is the next step. Learning to live well within our means is the necessary rehab that will put us back on the road to good political and economic health.

          Anything else is wheeling the patient out in front of the bus speeding to the edge of the cliff.

          • ag8tor

            You have summed up the problem in one paragraph. IN 2010 we thought we had at least made a dent in things by winning the house. Now we find that foollowing the election it’s business as usual. Reid and Obama say jump and Boehner et al say “how High”? The supposed principles they were sent to fight for are nowhere to be found. The 2012 election is as much about the house and senate as it is about the POTUS. Unless Reid and company are put back into the minority, the same thing will continue to happen no matter who is Pres.

          • mspector

            But having watched Boehner since the 2010 elections I am convinced that if all else fails he will find a way to compromise with himself.

        • carmen

          How many federal (judge) appointments were filibustered by the Senate (Schumer) during the Bush administration? It wasn’t (and isn’t, for the Dems) a matter of who controls what! It’s a matter of WILL -something Boehner and the boys clearly lack.

          The House controls the purse. Period. Refuse to fund anything – how hard is that? Apparently VERY hard, if you’re a spineless wuss.

          That’s why the Dem’s don’t actually propose to amend the Constitution. Why bother? It’s so much easier to just pass laws (or in the case of the EPA et al, create “rules”) that each Congress, no matter who controls it, just rubber stamps and thereby institutionalizes.

          I am sick of the “we’re only 1/3 of 1/2 of the government” excuse. It’s lame. And if they don’t start DOING what we SENT them to DC and PAY them to do, they’re going to lose their majority. And Obama’s gonna get a second term. And we’ll be Greece in about 10 years.

          Yes, it’s THAT bad. And the sad fact is, the GOP doesn’t get it, refuses to believe it, and is still preoccupied with playing politics and moving the chess pieces. They’re a colossal failure. And it’s not just going to cost THEM, it’s going to cost all of us – and our children and grand-children – DEARLY.

  • benko

    Welcome to Greece, population you.

  • zachv

    The Tea Party was darn successful bringing the deficit problem to the attention of the public. But every time Republicans are elected, they ride in there shouting and yelling and then change their tune a year and a half later. Oy vey.

    Of course it’d help if Democrats would actually propose non-fantasy based budget. At least then the conservative Republicans could have the opportunity to draw up stark contrasts and criticisms to demonstrate correct spending reductions, etc. Instead I guess it’s now fashionable to never pass budgets and leave everyone to die out in the cold.

  • carmen

    thing… I’ll be happy if we can get a BBA (a REAL BBA, not something that allows you to raise taxes to cover your spending addiction(s)) and Amendments for Congressional (and dare I say Supreme Court Appointee) term limits.

    Seriously.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    They don’t.

    …or, they’d kick Boehnor and McConnell out of the leadership–, which they manifestly will never, ever do.

    These “leaders” think this is all just typical Washington deal-making. They do not see Obamaism and it’s catastrophic spending as an existential threat. They do not understand the gravity of the situation, and all they are focused on is getting ahold of the Committee Chairmanships so THEY can spend the money.

    • rightland1111

      they are just interested in getting there own, right now…right here. This is just like the Fannie/Freddie crisis…people knew it, but they really did not push the panic button. They were all aware of what was going on, including bundling this crap and selling it.

      Boehner and McConnell are SELFISH and GREEDY. Sorry is that offens people. They live in the moment, not caring about any future because they know that they will have nice tidy retirements and they have squirreled (sp) enough money from insider trading, that they should be just fine with their offshore accounts. You really don’t think that Romney is the only one in that camp…do you?

      CC, I agree with you, I want both of these people out of office. OUT.
      They know where this is heading. Heck..if we stupid people, who went to the wrong college can figure it out, how come they can’t?

      I really can’t get my head around $15 trillion can you? We are going to hit another debt ceiling just before this election? This is twice now. This last debt ceiling raise was to carry us past the election. We will have two before the election.

      Yes, there needs to be something done about it. People in history have done something about it when faced with the same dire consequences…but it seems that the people that still have some values are either older or approaching older. The young people…most of them..not all, live off their parents or the government.

  • Kyle-MI

    It is not just about the deficit or the debt. It is certainly not about raising new revenue to cover greater spending.

    It is about not taking money from the private economy to fund bigger and bigger government. And certainly not at a time when our economy is weak. It is about the government behaving like the typical responsible family, cutting back on spending when times are tough. It is about living within our means.

    John Mica should be primaried. He shows the same completely brain-dead idiot mentality that lost us the House and Senate in 2006.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      nt

  • Archer

    whether the Republicans are wanting to do something that’s effective or not.

    At the moment, there’s not a reluctance for workers to look for work because payroll taxes are too high. The problem is that Obama has raised taxes on employers through Obamacare and has piled on regulations so that its not profitable for businesses to hire new workers.

    Yes, putting the money back into the pocket of some worker who has managed to keep his job is better than the government taking that money and wasting it. But not each possible tax cut will accomplish a desired goal with equal effectiveness.

    I personally don’t have a problem risking some deficit if what the government is doing will fix a problem in the long run.

    The liberal economist Keynes had the attitude that in the long run we are all dead so we should continually do what is best for the short term even when its bad in the long run.

    That’s precisely wrong. We are living in the long run. Whichever day that “today” is, we are reaping the consequences of the decisions of every yesterday.

    When you make continually make decisions which are good in the short term but bad in the long run, as you are living in the long run that is today, you are reaping the bad consequences of thousands of decisions made in those yesterdays. You can’t make enough short term decisions today to offset all of those negatives; there’s not enough hours in the day.

    You should instead continually try to make decisions which are good in the long run even if they have negative consequences in the short term. When doing that, you’ll have the positive consequences of thousands of decisions made in the yesterdays to offset whatever short term sacrifice you might need to make.

    Now back to taxes.

    If the proposed tax cut fixed the problem of employers not being willing to hire workers, I could get behind making that cut. Economists are terrible at making accurate predictions of what happen when the tax cut in question is likely to alter the behavior the person whose tax rate is altered (many liberal economists refuse to believe that tax rates alter behavior even when repeatedly shown historical evidence).

    This particular payroll tax cut does little or nothing to fix the problem we’re having. So in my opinion, Republicans shouldn’t be looking for offsets to pay for that payroll tax cut but rather working toward making a more effective tax cut elsewhere.

    From my point of view as a supply sider, stimulus (as the Washington crowd defines it) doesn’t exist. The government either does something to fix some problem which creates a better environment for businesses and workers to operate in or does something to make that environment worse, either creating a new problem or making some existing problem more problematic.

    This payroll tax cut isn’t likely going to alter the economic environment or alter worker behavior in any measurable way to motivate them to get to get a job, work longer hours, open a new business, invest, etc. I don’t see the point in taking money out of a financially failing program like Social Security to pay for a tax cut that doesn’t pack a punch.

    • mirac777

      Except for this little slip. ” I personally don?t have a problem risking some deficit if what the government is doing will fix a problem in the long run.”

      The government will “fix a problem in the long run?” First of all the government CREATES the problems, then charges the hell out of the taxpayers to “fix” them. Secondly, when it comes to business..the government has never fixed a business problem, EVER. Our government, when compared to a business model, has been bankrupt and dysfunctional for decades upon decades. The bottom line is that we do not need big daddy government “fixing” anything. They need to get out of the way, stop creating unconstitutional laws through rules and regulation fiat,

      The only way we will ever fix our big government problem, is to start prosecuting the criminals caught abusing tax dollars and enriching themselves and their cronies. 10 stiff prison sentences, and maybe a public tar and feathering or two would go a long way towards restoring our constitutional Republic. Until then they will keep on with the debt spending until we crash and burn.

      • Archer

        of that I mean about fixing a problem in the long run would be major tax reform to change to a flat tax rather than the nightmare system we have now. Or major reform to the social security system to bring us in line to the system of private retirement accounts like Chile has successfully done which has worked well throughout despite the ups and downs of their stock market .

        Those two specific examples are radical changes to the way Washington works. Its something Newt is proposing to do when he gets into office and things which Romney, Santorum, and most of the Republican establishment either haven’t pushed hard to make happen in the past (such as Santorum on tax reform) or have actively opposed in the past (such as Romney on a flat tax, and both Romney and Santorum on social security reform during this campaign).

        Yes, letting government meander along AS USUAL and meddle AIMLESSLY into ADDITIONAL things creates problems rather than solutions.

        But what I was referring to was the government doing something UNUSUAL: fixing one of the problems is has already created.

        Its not impossible that the government can fix one of the problems it has created. Its only very unlikely to happen unless we come together to vote for someone who wants to fix the problem.

  • sethellis

    Lawmakers alone will never have the willpower to fix the deficit. The only way we get this done is with a strong fiscal conservative in the white house. Someone with the will to fight the entire congress over it, and the ability to understand the true complexity of the monster.

    We’ve had this problem for decades. We’ve never come close to solving it. Such a president does not come along very often. When he appears we have to go with it because we probably won’t get a second chance. It would be a pitty if we passed up such a man because of some other petty difference we have with him.

    • Aaron Gardner

      ntnt

    • mirac777

      IMO, is Newt. He is the only one who looks like he is ready to take the fight to Congress, the media and especially the leftists. And he certainly knows how these criminals operate!

      YES he was a womanizer. So what? After the father of progressivism died the truth came out that his mistress of decades was right in the White House holding his hand while Mrs. Roosevelt was in another room! The great FDR , the longest serving POTUS in American history makes Newt look like an alter boy.

    • ag8tor

      are you referring to? I don’t know of any of the 4 Repubs that can make that claim.

  • lastgopinillinois

    They spend all their time trying to figure out ways to combat or lessen the damage done by the democrats lies (with the help of the lamestream media) rather than spending their time taking the conservative message to the American people and telling them why the payroll tax cut is the wrong way to go.
    I think they would gain more public support if they would just stand up for conservative principles, but they need to employ someone who is able to effectively articulate how and why the people BENEFIT from their policies.

    Instead, they constantly focus on the un-ending barage of brilliant tricks, lies and demogaguery from the left, and try to weasel out of political fallout (usually resulting in caving in and abandoning their principles).

    • Archer

      I’d say their problem is that they’re vaguely conservative in the sense of generally being pro-business but have never bothered to learn anything about economics (or didn’t believe what they’d been taught).

      That’s why I’m always excited when a supply-sider like Kemp, Newt, Reagan in his second and third runs, Robert Taft (Mr. Republican in the 1940′s and 50′s), or Steve Forbes runs. They know exactly what they believe about economics, why they believe it, What they need to do, and can intellectually defend their plans.

      And that’s exactly why I’m not excited when someone with no solid economic philosophy like George HW Bush, Romney, Santorum, Eisenhower, Nixon, or Bob Dole runs (and reaching back before my time, Herbert Hoover).

      There’s a huge number of things which are vaguely pro-business but which don’t make economic sense and aren’t good public policy. There’s starting a trade war by putting up protective tariffs (Hoover), bailing out businesses which should go through bankruptcy (Obama), giving money to private companies like Solendra (Obama) and Ernest & Julio Gallo (Dole), using government money to buy advertising for US companies trying to sell in foreign countries (numerous), etc.

      If a president doesn’t understand economics, its not uncommon that they take economic advice from people who areway otnay eryvay ightbray and who also know nothing about economics themselves. After all, how is such a president supposed to judge if he knows nothing about the subject himself? Having a degree from a prestigious university is no guide and neither is being highly respected in the field. Many prestigious universities teach communism and socialism. Almost all the rest teach Keynesian economics. If you find a supposedly fairly conservative economist, there’s no guarantee he;s not going to start to do something flaky like Paul Volker’s spectacular monetarism experiment causing 20%+ inflation in the late 70′s or Greenspan’s hiking interest rates more than a dozen times in a few short months to “fight inflation” which wasn’t in evidence in any economic numbers anyone else was looking at.

      I personally find it extremely comforting when a leader is well informed on his own. Not to harp on the subject of Newt excessively but I appreciated him as Speaker. He made his proposals and certainly didn’t always get what he wanted. But he always seemed to know the subject well enough to know what he could give away and what he could get in return so we didn’t end up with these horrible compromises which give everything away and gets nothing of value.

      • davesinsanantonio

        The liberals “know exactly what they believe about economics, why they believe it, What they need to do, and can intellectually defend their plans” at least as well as the conservatives. They are well versed in what they believe. But, believing something that is wrong is not enough. You have to learn truth. “The truth will set you free.” Deeply believed errors are still wrong.

        As Reagan said: The problem with liberals isn’t that they are ignorant, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so.

        Also, it is not so much that Republicans “never bothered to learn anything about economics”, it is that too many college economics courses are Keynesian. They learned it, but it was all wrong. We have to be able to espouse correct principles and teach them to the voters. We have to follow those correct principles and not compromise them for political expediency.

        The problem is not with real conservatives. The problem has always been with spineless weasely RINOs. And, with the lazy, ignorant voters who keep sending them back.

      • mirac777

        Are apparently dimwits when it comes to balancing a checkbook. How else could they justify spending billions( now trillions under Obama) more than the Treasury takes in year, after year after year.

        They get up there in Congress and read statements written by other’s and think this makes them look like they know what they are speaking about.They turn off their phones and hide from the people simply because if someone asked them a real question, they wouldn’t know squat! Like when they get caught being asked did you know that this was in that bill you voted for, and they answer no, was it really in there? This is a direct reflection of all those fake college degress held by members of ocongress to fluff them up, while when the truth comes out, they wouldn’t know a net profit statement from a dry cleaners bill.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        You honestly cannot count Newt. He can talk supply side all he wants, but he has been for some really stupid economic ideas over the years.

        Santorum wants to start a trade war. Romney has also talked tough on China, but I don’t see him actually doing much with tariffs because he doesn’t really believe it the way Santorum does.

        I guess what I am trying to say is that I think he would do the least harm of the bunch.

        • liveforadrenaline

          If there are no leaders, or leaders who are climbing the wrong mountain, or just plain stupid leaders, then the rank and file Republicans will not be able to change much.

          Right now, we have, perhaps, the worst leaders as the head of the House and Senate the Republicans have ever had.

          Boehner and McConnell have no balls, no leadership goals, and spend far too much time reacting to the other side, rather than taking the lead. Throw in the fact that every Republican Representative I talk to says Boehner spends an extraordinary amount of his time beating them up in order to get them to pass his dumb bills rather than do what is right economically and I really see no hope for Republicans, other than someone with some gonads taking on Boehner and removing him from leadership by getting a massive revolt going.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            The only young leaders I see, but they don’t have enough power yet, are Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul.

  • jack0001

    and the irony of it all is if they would, they would most likely win every time.

  • rhampton

    I don’t remember which RS editor said it, but the gist of his contention was that nothing would undue the principles of a conservative legislator faster than a transportation/highway bill. Why is that? Seriously.

    • liveforadrenaline

      1) Transportation bills are budget-busting in size and.

      2) They are always loaded with pork.

      3) They are often a payoff to union construction workers more than anything, so in essence they are just another redistribution scheme.

      4) The individual projects are often run by states or county union workers who would like to see themselves get more from us dumb taxpayers.

      • rhampton

        What I mean is, if a legislator is conservative in all other respects, then why do they succumb to temptation on highway bills? What makes this a conservative’s kryptonite rather than some other type of bill equally loaded with pork union kick-backs?

  • rightland1111

    nt

  • http://undo4me.com WmCraig

    Instead of shutting down the programs, closing the politburos and firing the CZARS the Republicans we elected to stop the mad spending supported more spending then their Democrat predecessors.

    I am no longer certain sending anyone to Washington will do anything. I had hoped sending Republicans when Obama would take the blame for all the bad things would have given them the courage to lead. Unfortunately, the leadership has proven they are only interested in “getting back in the drivers seat” and that they have the power and skill to make anyone we send to Washington a tool to this end. They are not interested in fixing the problem.

    So where do we find that “better group” of Republicans, when even the tea party candidates have let us down? Why will this crop, if we can find them, be any more successful then the last?

    • liveforadrenaline

      It has to do with leadership.

      All the tea-partiers and fiscal conservatives in the world can do nothing unless they become heads of powerful committees and reach the leadership level.

      Voting does almost nothing, because they only get to vote on bills put before them.

      Ron Paul and his ilk is the epitomy of ineptness and worthlessness in his decades in the House, because he hasn’t worked his butt off to become head of any committees. Too busy out giving fancy speeches, raising money, and running for President, I guess.

  • billstanley

    There are too many voters with cash welfare, Medicaid, housing assistance and food stamps, and pay no federal income taxes whose votes can be bought without raising taxes. Fiscal conservatism is dead. The U.S. is following Greece over the debt cliff www.newsandopinions.net.

  • mike57

    Wouldn’t this be a winning message to Senator Santorum, who also has the support of defense and social conservatives, and wouldn’t it also breath new life into the campain of Speaker Gingrich?

    Why allow a position this good to be the sole territory of the Congressman from Texas?

  • mattyp

    Republicans talk a big talk, but the last 3 Republican presidents have done nothing but deficit spend. Republicans had 8 years of the Presidency and Congressional control and doubled the national debt.

    They talk the talk of fiscal restraint now, but as soon as they regain control, it will be more of the same.

  • thebadpiper

    When it comes to big government and spending, Republicans and Democrats are simply different sides of the same coin. Neither Party gives a damn about the people of the United States. They are both part of the Political Class that got us into this situation because all they cared about was their own power and privileges; and cared nothing for the individual freedom or the welfare of the Country. When was the last time that you heard about a politician going bankrupt? Compare that to how many times you have heard of a politician (or their fellow travelers, so called “civil servants”) going to jail.

  • sharrondeer

    That’s what Dick Cheney famously said in 2002. And that’s what the Republicans really believe. Anything else is just lip service.

    It’s obvious from the facts. Reagan tripled the national debt and GWB doubled it. Ironically, the only president who didn’t have deficits is Clinton.

    So what do you expect?

    • Jack_Savage

      Just FYI, because I was there. Reagan rebuilt a military gutted by his worthless Democrat predecessor, and Bush had a little thing called 9/11 occur because Clinton was too busy diddling Monica Lewinsky to kill Osama Bin Laden, Clinton had deficits for his first two years until a GOP congress put a halt to them.

      The explosion in debt now, which you conveniently ignore, was caused by the takeover of the country by Democrats. Plain and simple.

      Now go back to fantasy world. Say hi to the Obamabots for us.

  • johninohio

    and people start looking for solutions that prevent national debt explosions in the future, they should abandon the current election process for Congressmen. No more of this 2 year/ 6 year coasting between elections. All elections should be referendum elections, where getting some minimum number of pettition signatures requires an election to be held between an individual incumbent and a challenger.

    When an incumbent accrues enough demerits for unpopular political decisions / votes in Congress, that he/she has to worry about a referendum recall election, he/she will seriously consider changing their governing philosophy. And we don’t have to put up with 2 or 6 years of corruption or incompetence before we can do something about it.

    Of course, this will require an amendment to the Constitution. Since this is a difficult thing to do under normal circumstances, it will require dire circumstances to propel it forward.

    But that’s coming.

  • ihateliberals

    of the House they just won the election for the Republicans. That’s right the Liberal’s still have control of the House. John Boehner and all of the Tea Party haters are still in control and they are Liberal Republicans. The only difference is that a Liberal Republican is quite as strong smelling as a Liberal Democrat. As long as Progressives are in charge they will spend us into oblivion. Peoplke need to stop sending these liberals back to DC. AZ sent that useless McCain abck and Ohio continuously sends Boehner back. Both Progressives and Libereal Republicans. We need to dump this type of republican and elect conservative ones. then we wil have control of the House. Until then hold on to your wallets because the spenders are loose in the House.

  • http://www.periodictablet.com superamerican

    IF REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVES RALLY AROUND THE BATTLE CRY: “SUSTAINABLE SPENDING” IT WOULD FORM A PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION FOR CONGRESSIONAL DECISIONMAKING. AND IT WOULD COUNTERACT THE DEMOCRATS’ HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PHRASES: “THE RICH GET RICHER”, “TAX THE RICH”, “THE 1%” AND THE ALL-ENCOMPASSING “FAIRNESS”.

    THINK ABOUT

    “SUSTAINABLE SPENDING”

    • acat

      Mew

  • rightland1111

    can’t fathom $15 trillion dollars. I’m just in awe of the number and know there is no way to pull out from this nosedive. Liked the bunker. :-)

  • kestrel

    Ninety-one Republicans voted against the payroll tax extension bill, likely for the reasons you cite. Here’s the roll call. The following is from the Facebook page of Rep. Justin Amash, who voted “no”. The bold is mine.

    This revised bill (from December), which still should be called the Debt Creation Act, will add substantially to the federal government’s unsustainable debt. CBO estimates that it will increase the deficit by about $101 billion in FY 2012 and $40 billion in FY 2013. Even excluding the impact of the payroll cut extension, which is not offset, deficits would increase by $30 billion in 2012 and $16 billion in 2013. Almost all of the spending on unemployment insurance and the “doc fix” occurs this year, but the offsets really only begin several years from now. This Congress cannot bind the actions of a future Congress, so any future savings in the bill are speculative. We cannot continue indebting future generations of Americans. I voted “no.” It passed 293-132.