Tag Archives: Cut Cap and Balance

Allen West Talks With CDNews on Debt, the Economy and Foreign Policy

Tuesday afternoon, I had the opportunity to spend twenty minutes with Congressman Allen West (R FL-22) and ask him about the outcome of the debt-limit negotiations, the current state of the economy and U.S. foreign policy. Once the pleasantries were exchanged, we got right to the questions.

Rich: Moody’s cut the U.S. economic outlook for 2011 and people are still struggling to find jobs. What would you like to see done on to fix the economy?

Rep. West: I think One of the things that has to happen is the government has to set the conditions to incentivize long-term, sustainable economic growth in America. When we continue to talk about bigger government and tax hikes, that’s not how we do it. I think when you look at the corporate tax rate in America, which is the second highest in the world, very simply let’s take that tax rate and cut it down to 20-21% and remove all the loopholes, strategies and subsidies and give our corporations and businesses a competitive tax rate. For the individual tax rate, since many businesses operate as sub chapter S corporations, let’s flatten that out to somewhere between 13% and 16% and only have two deductions: the child tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction.

For clarification, I repeated what I’d heard and got even more insight into how the Congressman would kick start the economy. He mentioned that not only would he be in favor of the lower corporate tax rate, but would favor making it retroactive to January 1st of 2011. As Rep. West put it, it would allow companies to recalculate their liabilities and realize additional assets that could allow them to invest, expand and hire.

Rep. West also mentioned the repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley, the set of financial regulations intended to prevent market losses like those experienced due to the Enron scandal. Unfortunately, Sarbanes-Oxley is expensive to implement and lacks any real or perceived benefits. It has done little more than to burden American companies with complex regulations that make it difficult to compete in the global economy.

Stressing that the “Keynesian model just doesn’t work” Congressman West mentioned that instead of more “pie-in-the-sky gimmicks” like stimulus spending, we should be looking at real plans like the new legislation he has in the House Ways and Means Committee – H.R. 1663 is titled  “The Small Business Encouragement Act” which, according to the Republican Study Committee, would:

The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow small businesses who hire an unemployed American, a work opportunity tax credit, saving employers up to $12,000 a year per hire in some areas of the country. To qualify, small businesses must have gross receipts in the preceding taxable year not exceeding $20 million, or they must employ less than 100 full time employees. The tax credit will double for employers hiring unemployed Americans in counties with an unemployment rate that is higher than the national average, which is currently just above 9 percent.

In the RSC blog post Rep. West was quoted as saying, “The Small Business Encouragement Act is a simple, effective solution to putting people back to work by encouraging the very backbone of our economy, the small businesses.”

Rich: In addition to the economy, what other issues would you like to see the House take up after the current recess?

Rep. West: I wish we had our tails back up there in Washington, D.C. right now. We have 12 appropriations bills that we have to pass through the House and get over to the Senate. We’ve only done 6 in the House so far and I think that the Senate has only taken up one of those.

We shouldn’t be waiting around for this joint committee of Congress to get going on finding spending cuts. We should get back up there and immediately implement the $300 Billion in cuts to duplicative and redundant government programs that the GAO (Government Accounting Office) report identified earlier this year.

I think we should be very concerned that China has rolled out it’s first aircraft carrier and the United Nations (U.N.) have a unilateral vote on Palestinian statehood in September.

The Congressman also expressed that while it was fantastic to get to speak with and meet his constituents, the prevailing feeling he was getting was that voters would rather Congress was in session getting these things done.

Rich: The news yesterday mentioned a “trial balloon”-style rumor that Obama may seek to solve our jobs dilemma by creating more government – The Department of Jobs. How do you feel about that approach?

Rep. West: That’s one of the most insidious things I’ve ever heard. Look, we have some government agencies that I don’t know why they exist. Why do we have a department of labor if we need a department of jobs? Why do we have a Department of Energy, that was originally created to make us energy independent and we still don’t have a diversified energy resource portfolio in the United States of America. When I hear the President speak, all I hear is a big government, liberal, progressive, socialist that does not understand that his policies that he has tried to implement over just less than three years has brought us incredible debt and increased our trillion dollar plus deficits over the last few years.

Even the liberal-leaning Huffington Post has an article that agrees with the Congressman on the silly nature of the President’s rumored idea. HuffPo’s Ken Blackwell points out not only the redundancy that Obama’s Dept. of Jobs would have with the Labor Department, but also the Commerce Department:

Then, of course, we have the U.S. Commerce Department. The Mission Statement of this department makes it sound like it, too, is a Jobs Department.

The U.S. Department of Commerce promotes job creation, economic growth, sustainable development and improved standards of living for all Americans by working in partnership with businesses, universities, communities and our nation’s workers.

We then changed the subject to the recent debt limit negotiations and outcome.

Rich: You voted for the negotiated debt-limit deal, correct?

Rep .West: Yes I did.

Rich: Out of all the plans and frameworks presented – the Ryan plan, Connie Mack’s Penny plan and cut, cap and balance, which was your favorite?

Rep. West: The Cut, Cap and Balance plan was my favorite and that was the one that 70-some-odd percent of the American people were behind. I think it’s reprehensible that Harry Reid, playing politics, tabled it. But the important thing is that you just don’t quit. The worst case situation is that the Democrats, that had no plan, no vision whatsoever, enabled a perceived or manufactured  crisis to occur. Then they turned to the blame game and the next thing you know we have to succumb to their wild and crazy economic schemes.

The final debt agreement was not the 100%. It was probably a 70-75% solution for me. The cuts in spending are not great, but at least we don’t have tax hikes. It’s also the first time ever that we’ve had a debt limit increase along with cuts in spending.

Congressman West was also quick to point out that this sets a precedent. Debt limit increases are not going to come free and easy anymore. He also was not fond of the Joint Committee, but felt it would be something they could work through.

Rich: The negotiated deal also contains, as a trigger provision, significant cuts to defense spending if deficit reductions don’t happen. Considering all that our young men and women in uniform are asked to do, are you concerned about that provision?

Rep. West:  What I found is really horrible is that we have to have this nuclear option hung over our heads as if we can’t do the sensible and the right thing and find the $1.5 trillion in additional cuts over the next ten years. I don’t think anyone wants to be there and say that “I decimated the defense structure of the United States of America on my watch”. You can best be sure that I will do everything possible on my side to make sure that this Joint Commission of Congress performs their duties. I sit on the Armed Services Committee, I have many a friend and also a nephew that is still serving. I am not going to allow them to be sent into a combat zone without the proper levels of readiness.

With the debt-limit situation covered, foreign policy was up as the final topic.

Rich: Considering the three conflicts that the U.S. is currently engaged in – Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, which, if any do you believe we should be fighting?

Rep. West: Libya we should not be fighting at all. On this I have been very vocal. I believe the President is violating statutory law and going against the War Powers Act of 1973. I was one of the first to go into Iraq in 2003 with the Fourth Infantry Division. Now it’s going to be drawn down on the 31st of December of this year. I do have some concerns on the resurgance of Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi army which is supported by Iran. I believe that when you look at Afghanistan we got off-focus in being more concerned with nation building and occupation-style warfare instead of focusing on the enemy and his sanctuaries. On the tenth anniversary of 9-11,those attacks emanated out of Afghanistan, I don’t want to just pull tents and run away without having defeated the enemy to some measure of success.

Rich: There was a video put up by The Shark Tank that showed you discounting Representative Ron Paul as a serious candidate based on his foreign policy views, specifically on Iran. How would you like to see the United States deal with Iran?

Rep. West: The last thing I want to see us do is to take the Neville Chamberlain type of perspective and believe that we can compromise, appease and negotiate with Iran. You know, we’ve been in contention with Iran ever since the fall of the Shah, the rise of the Ayatollah and the hostage crisis. I believe there is going to come a time when we will have to take action against the military capability of Iran. Iran is supporting actions against our men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. For anyone to sit and say that they want to be President of the United States of America, understanding that the most important title for the President is Commander-in-Chief, and say that they would not have problem with Iran having a nuclear device because everyone else has it – shows that person does not understand mutually assured destruction theory (M.A.D.). The religious fanatics that are truly in control in Iran – if they get that device, they’re going to use it for the purposes of having an apocalyptic event so that they can conceivably bring back the 12th Imam – the Mahdi.

Rich: Obama has stressed our relationship with one of our closest allies – Israel. There is mounting pressure for the U.N. to grant statehood to Palestine and this administration seems to be doing little to prevent it. What is your stance on the statehood of Palestine?

Rep West: I’m headed over to Israel this Saturday for a week. I think the most important thing is for the President, [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice, and Secretary of State Clinton should do is to come out, have a press conference and unequivocally state that they will not support a unilateral creation of a Palestinian state by the United Nations. We need to vote against it in the General Assembly. We definitely need to veto it in the U.N. security council. There should not be any quibbling about where we stand.

Congressman West expounded upon his answer by explaining that he had real concerns about a Palestinian government, Fatah,  that has reconciled with Hamas – a known terrorist group that has in its charter the destruction of Israel. Hamas does  not recognize Israel as a nation and now the U.N. would consider recognizing Palestine as a state. He also mentioned that if Palestine somehow were granted statehood, that the United States would respond by providing, “absolutely no funding to an illegitimate Palestinian State”.

Representative West is running for re-election in 2012 and you can keep up with his work in the House at west.house.gov or at his website: www.allenwestforcongress.com/

Interview Note:
There was much more from the interview, but I’ll be releasing that in separate articles as those questions were from unrelated topics. I thank Representative Allen West and his dedicated team for making this interview possible.

Liberalism and Child Play

Spend and Trim D-BombI’m seeing a certain attitude from the left that I usually see in children. I’m talking actions that could be summed up in childhood hit phrases such as “I know you are but what am I”, “It wasn’t me”, and our dear leader’s favorite, “Lalalalala I’m not listening. Lalalalala.”

Thing is, when any grown adult acts this way (especially if they’re a liberal) it’s very difficult to argue with them in any rational way. You can see the difference in the speeches that our respective party leaders have been giving.

Exhibit A:

The President is a great orator to be sure, but behind the teleprompter laced façade of intelligence lays the truth; Obama is a whiny man-child, and not just a whiny man-child, but the kind of whiny man-child that points at his older brother while standing amongst the mess he created and proclaiming “he did it!”

For one, while the budget crisis is looming on us like it’s the “Debt Star” coming to blow up our fancy little civilization, the Republican congress has sent out its best fighters and came up with a bill called Cut, Cap, and Balance to stop and eventually destroy it. This did not please our whiner in chief, since he could not put his name on such a bill that went against the very fiber of his darker political leanings, and you don’t know the power of the dark side. Sorry, I’ll stop the space movie references here.

Boehner talks about it here:

Simply put, the bill would put a lid on government spending, cut the unnecessary fat off our budget, and allow an amendment to be added to the Constitution that essentially forbids the government from spending more money than it has, or takes in. It’s pretty straight forward and simplistic, but it got a veto before it even hit the President’s desk. The defense of the action is the video you see above.

As you can see, in the video, Obama flat our rejects it because…well, short answer: He doesn’t like it. It’s not left enough for one. It was made by a bunch of Republicans after all, namely his chief political rival, Boehner. Where CC&B wanted to cut spending and trim fat, Obama wanted to raise taxes and keep on truckin’ with what he calls a more “…balanced approach”.

“The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending.  Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President.  Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars.  Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare – and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations.  Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.”

 Like that song? It’s become one of his biggest hits behind “It’s Bush’s Fault”.

That approach of his might sound soothing but when you break it down, it’s another left leaning, liberal progressive idea. Take from the rich and give to the government. Weaken the military, and strengthen our social programs. You know how the tune goes.

After that he points his finger at the Republicans and claims they are merely “…kicking the can further down the road.” he lashes out with a dire warning about how the right does things.

“Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now.  The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach.  Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions.  Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare.  And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.”

…and they’ll kick puppies.

This is projection in the worst form. Members of congress have thrown budget plans at the President multiple times, but each time they are shrugged off and the members who created it are chided and called names. We called this “bullying” when I was a kid.  We keep coming up with the ideas, they keep rejecting them. We provide facts and figures, they provide ideology and new tax hikes.

The only people holding the economy captive are the ones that currently hold the gun, and Obama’s not pulling any triggers. Not at least until he knows that pulling it will make him look real good in the next election, and that means as little Republican, or as much Democrat involvement as possible.

As we approach the climax of this crisis it’s important to note that the bipartisanry of either side is more or less non-existent but each has a different idea in mind when they go that route. Republicans have to stand firm on what they know is a good idea, while the left has to stand firm on what they know is their ideology. They’ll always think the rich must pay and the “have nots” should get what they didn’t earn because it’s only fair.

Well forget that! We can’t allow the left to weasel in anything that really will kick the can down the road, because in the end, if we just hike taxes and continue spending what’s the point of passing any debt budget? They want more of your money or you can’t continue living prosperously as American’s have for generations, and don’t try to come up with anything contrary to the leftist agenda or you’ll be shot down, called names, and made a fool of.

Shorter: Give us your lunch money, or you’ll be sorry.

Hold the Line!

Hold the line

Reuters -- Washington, D.C. -- 7-27-11

Tea Party faithfuls are reminding Speaker Boehner that his seat as speaker is dependent upon him living up to their expectations. Expectations that the runaway spending in Washington will end under his leadership.

Wearing t-shirts adorned with “Hold the Line” a large contingent of small-government activists held court at capitol hill on Wednesday. Their show of  solidarity wasn’t about dealing with a foreign enemy, but a domestic one – ourselves. Conservative Americans are asking the right side of the isle to stand firm against Harry Reid’s progressive, extremist caucus on the issue of the national debt.

As children we were showered with the notion that if nothing was done about federal spending that grandchildren would be left with a bill they could not pay. Well, it’s not grandchildren anymore, the United States of America is broke thanks almost entirely to overspending on Democratic entitlement programs.

Rand Paul at D.C. Hold the Line event.

While Democrats and establishment GOP paint the “hold the line” mantra as near psychotic ramblings from an extremist cult – the Tea Parties have it right and Republicans should pay attention – it’s the Constitution, stupid.

Republicans have been forced to water-down budget solutions time-after-time while the Senate Democrats produce nothing. The way this should work is that the House passes their version of a bill, if the Senate doesn’t agree with the bill they offer their version and finally the two sides meet in conference committee to hash out a compromise. Harry Reid has no intention of compromising.

Republicans passed Cut,cap and balance – the Senate Democrats offered no alternative. In fact, they just tabled the bill instead of debating and voting on it as Reid had promised.

Republicans passed the Ryan plan – the Senate Democrats offered no alternative and killed that legislation too.

The kind of brinkmanship being offered by Democrats in the Senate and White House is dangerous. The fact that Republicans are faltering instead of meeting the challenge is disheartening.

What we need now is leadership from the House GOP. Demand that the Senate supply their version of a budget fix and force a conference committee. That is how it is supposed to work. This cycle of pass a bill, Harry hates it, water it down, try to pass it, the House hates it, change it again… is nauseating.  The fact that the House GOP is largely being led around by the nose by Senate Democrats is embarrassing.

Cut,cap and balance is the starting point – it is the line. It’s already passed the House and Republicans should be demanding real negotiations from the left instead of turning tail and looking for more giveaways to  the progressives.

Perhaps we need our own version of Mel Gibson in “The Patriot” running against the tide of fleeing soldiers yelling over and over “HOLD THE LINE .. HOLD THE LINE” while waving the American flag.

Mr. Speaker “HOLD THE LINE!”

July 28th Radio Show: Debt, Norway, and possible GOP VP choices [Recorded Show Included]

Conservative Radio Show - The Plain, Hard Truth with Rich Mitchell and Michelle RayShow Time: Thursday July 21st, 7pm pacific, 8pm Mountain, 9pm Central, 10pm Eastern

Tune In: Plain, Hard Truth Radio Show

Call in: Be part of the program – call in to the show: (424) 220-1807

Guests: Nicole Pearce and Andrew Staroska from Truth About Bills.

Show Topics: Join Michelle and Rich as they take your calls on the budget crisis, the Norwegian massacre, and possible GOP VP Choices .

Recording of the Show:

Listen to internet radio with Rich Mitchell on Blog Talk Radio

Links from the Show:

They Aren’t Taking This Seriously 

Cut, Cap and Balance Could Pass the Senate

Hear recordings of past shows: CDN On-Air Archives


They Aren’t Taking This Seriously

Obama and ReidThe debt mess is a huge mess and a whole slew of people aren’t serious about cleaning it up.

Yesterday, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored John Boehner’s plan and said that it only cut the deficit by about one trillion dollars over ten years. That same office scored Harry Reid’s plan and said that it would cut twice that in the same time period. Neither are serious efforts at curtailing spending.

Our current national debt stands at $14.3 trillion dollars. We ran a $1.4 trillion deficit just this year. Boehner’s plan wouldn’t even fix the amount we overspent this year and Reid’s wouldn’t cut enough out of future deficits to remedy the amount of overspending for which Obama is to blame.

Paul Ryan was serious when he presented his framework that the DNC killed by showing images of grandma being pushed over the cliff in a wheelchair. Seriously? Of course not.

Cut, Cap and Balance was a serious proposal to finally end the runaway spending in Washington, killed by the Democrats in the Senate and Obama threatened to veto it even if it had passed.

Our members of Congress are not taking this seriously – why not? Probably because a large portion of Americans aren’t paying attention and both Republican and Democrat politicians know it. These are the moderates in America. They don’t closely follow the news, but show up at the polls after having read an article or two the weekend before. There may be no way to get those voters to pay attention other than by letting August 2nd happen without a deal.

The media isn’t taking things seriously either. They are using the same scare tactics as the Democrats. Throwing “default” and “credit rating downgrade” around as if those things aren’t going to happen within a few years one way or another. Why isn’t the main stream media revealing the truth about what August 2nd would really bring if no deal is reached?

First, on August 2nd, there will be no default – none. Not one t-bill will have its yields unpaid. In fact, the Constitution requires that Congress pay those obligations and we will have more than enough in regular revenues to service that debt for the next few years.

There is also enough revenue to pay the troops, send out Social Security checks and take care of Medicare beneficiaries. These, however, are choices that the Obama administration can make. The President could order the Treasury to pay government union employees before funding Social Security or Medicare. Only the President could decide not to pay seniors while funding one of his own priorities and he has levied a veiled threat at our retirees stating that he might just do that.

If our credit rating were to drop to AA+ from AAA, there would not be a worldwide scramble to dump U.S.-backed securities. AA+ would be on-par with other high-quality investments and would still be one of the safest in the marketplace. It is unlikely that an auction would fail or that an interest rate increase (and price drop) would be required to keep investors buying the nation’s debt.

Since Harry Reid and his band of miscreants have said NO to every single viable attempt to cut our deficits and balance the budget, the debt ceiling will do it for them. If no deal is reached, on August 2nd Congress will no longer have the authority to issue more debt. They will have to service the interest on existing debt, pay our troops, issue social security checks, pay Medicare claims and not much else until they can come to agreement on how to fix the mess that they have gotten us into. They will finally have to take the national debt seriously.

DNC Escalates Mediscare Tactics in Rant on .. Huntsman?

Democrats Use Medicare Fear TacticsJon Hunstman is so far in the back of the GOP pack that by now he must be reaching the acceptance phase of the death of his campaign. That did not stop the Democratic National Committee from attacking him and the well-thought Cut, Cap and Balance plan at the same time.

A DNC press release entitled: “Give It to Us Straight, Mr. Huntsman: Do You Support Cut, Cap and Kill Medicare?” the DNC pulls out the Mediscare ghost to go after a political also-ran. Jon Huntsman has no chance of winning the primaries, but the DNC can’t resist an opportunity to frighten the retired and baby boomers into voting against any Republican.

Maybe by attacking a no-name like Mr. Huntsman, they felt that no one would test their claim. Cut, Cap and Balance has not one .. not two, but THREE clauses that exempt Medicare from spending cuts. Of course, we hear no Republicans pushing back. Why? Democrats have successfully pushed CCB into being nothing more than background noise in the current debate and the proponents of CCB, like Jim Jordan, just don’t seem to know how to defend their own plans.

 

Senate WILL Vote on Cut, Cap and Balance

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that the Senate will vote on the Cut, Cap and Balance bill that passed in the House earlier in the week. The vote may come as early as this afternoon or tomorrow.

The bill intends to to cut the amount of spending, cap the amount of the GDP used to be paid into debt, and to balance the budget.

Though the Democrats and main stream media have said there is no chance of it passing the Senate vote, they could be wrong.

Harry Reid, specifically, stated that the bill

 “doesn’t have one chance in a million of passing the Senate.”

With the bill coming up for a vote in the Senate, you, the American voter has the power. Call your Senator and tell them to vote yes on the Cut, Cap and Balance bill. Tell them not to give in to politics. Do your part to call Obama’s bluff.

Phone numbers for all Senators can be found here:

http://senate.gov/

 

Cut, Cap and Balance Could Pass Senate

After having passed the House of Representatives this week, the Cut, Cap and Balance budget solution will be up for a cloture vote in the Senate on Saturday. The entirety of main stream media has already declared it dead – they may be wrong.

The bill is being taken up in the Senate today and a will see the preliminary vote on Saturday. A cloture vote is simply a vote to close debate. It allows for an additional 30 hours of debate should the cloture vote pass before a final Senate vote.

Cloture: The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes. [1]

Americans are going to get at least a few days of debate on the Cut, Cap and Balance bill despite Democrat theatrics calling a vote on the bill “political theater,” a “waste of time,” and a “show vote”. They may get more. If the cloture vote fails, debate continues.

Is balancing the budget a “waste of time” or even a “scam” or “stupid” as Sen. Mikulski (D-Md) put it? Not all Democrats think so:

So while the cloture vote only closes debate, it will put pressure on Democrats and Republicans alike. First, cloture should happen and the heat must be turned up on Senators.

For Democrats, voters would have to let them know that a balanced budget is the mos-important thing the Senate can do. Had the Democrat-led Senate bothered to pass budgets the last 2+ years, perhaps they wouldn’t be where they are. Either way, this decision will have direct repercussions on our kids. We are no longer talking about what a failure to balance the budget will do to our grandchildren – failure has gone on too long.

For Republicans the message is simple: if they want to vote down Cut, Cap and Balance in favor of the Gang of Six failure of a proposal (not even a bill) to protect them with voters in the general election, they should be so informed that they won’t get that far. If they choose to abandon the future of America for fear of losing their seats, we will guarantee that they will – in February they will be replaced by fiscally-sound Republicans in the primaries.

When the bill comes up for a Senate vote is when the single American voter has the most power. Get a yes vote on cloture and then press for yes on final passage. Let’s call Obama’s bluff – veto this, Sir.

Phone numbers for all Senators can be found here:

http://senate.gov/

 

**Update 7/22 – Well, dingy Harry strikes again. Despite his promise to let it go to a roll call vote, he lead the Democrats in the Senate in killing the best hope for America’s future. The plan that would finally have put restrictions on Congressional spending.

 

Sources:

[1] http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

 

July 21st Radio Show – Debt, GOP Rumors and the NLRB

Conservative Radio Show - The Plain, Hard Truth with Rich Mitchell and Michelle RayShow Time: Thursday July 21st, 7pm pacific, 8pm Mountain, 9pm Central, 10pm Eastern

Tune In: Plain, Hard Truth Radio Show

Call in: Be part of the program – call in to the show: (424) 220-1807

Guests: Nicole Pearce and Andrew Staroska from Truth About Bills.

Show Topics: Join Michelle and Rich as they take your calls on the budget crisis, the GOP rumor mill, and the latest on the Boeing/NLRB fiasco.

Recording of the Show:

Listen to internet radio with Rich Mitchell on Blog Talk Radio

Links from the Show:

Allen West Fires Back at Debbie Wasserman Shultz [Email Text and Video]

 

Cut, Cap and Balance Could Pass the Senate

Hear recordings of past shows: CDN On-Air Archives


Democrats Dumb Things Down Better Than Republicans

The debt ceiling debate will most-likely become the GOP’s fault. Not because the lion’s share of spending is from Republican policies, but because Democrats are much better at speaking in generalities, obscuring facts and planting doubt.

Republican Study Committee Logo

Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace facing Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland).

Chris Wallace made an interesting point, one that Van Hollen was eager to let pass without comment, that Jordan missed the opportunity to make a strong point on, and Wallace did a poor job of exploring: what happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised on August 2nd?

Chris presented the issue by saying that if we pay Social Security first, some top government programs would have to take cuts of around 40%. A slide was displayed that listed programs like the Veterans Administration, the FAA, and more. Van Hollen let the slide go without comment realizing the trap. For Jordan, it perfectly illustrated the terrible situation America is in – we’re broke. After paying Social Security, many government programs are beyond our ability to fund. If we raise the debt ceiling, we are admitting that we can’t afford these programs and are too dense to do anything about it.

Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat on the House Budget Committee was flawless. Talking points firmly memorized and facts transmogrified into fear-mongering platitudes, he was able to defeat every one of Jordan’s responses with nothing but populist garbage.

Jim Jordon is one of the sponsors of the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation that will likely pass the House and fail in the Senate next week. Van Hollen falsely summarized the bill for the weak-minded: [paraphrased]: Their legislation would cut Medicare and give tax breaks to oil companies.

Jordan was ill-prepared for the debate. He was unable to contradict Van Hollen’s Mediscare talking point. In Jordan’s own committee bill (H.R. 2560 – Cut, Cap and Balance) there is a specific subsection that protects Medicare:

EXEMPT FROM DIRECT SPENDING LIMITS.—
Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):
(1) Social Security, function 650.
(2) Medicare, function 570.
(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function
(4) Net Interest, function 900.

And again, in another section of the legislation, Medicare is exempted from the measure:

(B) Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Control Act of 1985 shall not apply to this section, except that payments for military personnel accounts (within subfunctional category 051), TRICARE for Life, Medicare (functional category 570), military retirement, social security (functional category 650), veterans (functional category 700), net interest (functional category 900), and discretionary appropriations shall be exempt

There is only one more mention of Medicare in the entire bill and yes.. it also holds Medicare exempt from the proposed legislation.

Cut, cap and balance does not cut Medicare, in fact, it specifically protects it. Van Hollen was wrong and Jordan was not even able to quote legislation he sponsors to point that out. The fact that Chris Wallace was ill-informed is nothing new, but he let the Democrat get away with misleading information.

The right says: we only take in enough money to pay for 60% of our current responsibilities. We have to cut spending to affordable levels or we will face bankruptcy in the next 2 to 3 years.

The left says: they want to cut Medicare and give tax breaks to oil companies.

This is how Democrats intend to keep the spending faucet wide open – flat out lies. Class warfare, scare tactics on Medicare and other fabrications are all they have. Unfortunately, a large portion of America finds it easier to consume the dumbed-down rhetoric from the left, instead of trying to process the logic from the right.

Cut, Cap and Balance [RSC Summary]

Economists agree that the U.S. will face a major debt crisis within the next few years. Erskine Bowles, the top Democrat on President Obama’s debt commission, calls this “the most predictable economic crisis in history.”

One-time spending cuts will not be enough to avert the coming crisis. Neither will toothless promises of cuts 10 years from now. Only permanent changes will do. The answer is spending cuts now, enforceable spending caps, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution – Cut, Cap, and Balance.

As proposed by the Republican Study Committee, Cut, Cap, and Balance entails:

  • Cut – Immediate spending cuts to reduce the deficit by half next year. According to March projections from the Congressional Budget Office, this would require spending cuts of approximately $380 billion in the 2012 fiscal year.
  • Cap – Statutory, enforceable caps that bring spending into line with average revenues at 18% of GDP. Reps. Kingston and Mack have each introduced legislation that would ratchet total federal spending down to 18% of GDP over the course of 5-6 years.
  • Balance – House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes a spending cap at 18% of GDP and a supermajority requirement for tax increases. The House Judiciary Committee and all 47 GOP Senators have endorsed Balanced Budget Amendments along these lines. – House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes a spending cap at 18% of GDP and a supermajority requirement for tax increases. The House Judiciary Committee and all 47 GOP Senators have endorsed Balanced Budget Amendments along these lines.

In an On Message, Inc. survey of 1,000 likely voters nationwide, large majorities support:

  • Cutting next year’s deficit in half through spending cuts. (Favored 69%-20%)
  • Capping federal spending to no more than 18% of GDP. (Favored 66%-17%)
  • A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. (Favored 81%-13%)

The survey also found that Americans support a supermajority requirement to raise taxes (Favored 60%-30%).

Asked to choose between the three publicly proposed options for raising the debt limit:

  • 49% chose Cut, Cap, and Balance.
  • 21% chose $2-3 trillion in cuts for a $2 trillion debt limit increase.
  • 9% chose a blank-check debt limit increase with no spending cuts.

Getting the country back on track will also require a stronger economy. But in the face of higher taxes, inflation, interest rates, and regulation, many companies aren’t taking the risk of new hires or opportunities. By preventing the coming debt crisis, Cut, Cap, and Balance will rebuild private sector confidence and help businesses see reasons to hire once more.

Thousands of Americans and dozens of Representatives and Senators have taken the Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge, promising to oppose any debt limit increase without substantial spending cuts, enforceable caps on spending, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment that also limits spending and requires a supermajority for tax increases.

Source: Republican Study Committee web site: http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Cut-Cap-Balance_1-Pager.pdf

Cut Cap and Balance [Full Text]

Calendar No. 97

 

112th CONGRESS

 

1st Session

 

S. 1340

 

To cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget.

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

JULY 7, 2011

 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. PAUL, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. HATCH, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CORKER, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. VITTER, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

 

JULY 11, 2011

 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

 


A BILL

 

To cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011’.

     

TITLE I–CUT

 

SEC. 101. REDUCTION OF 2012 SPENDING.

    • (1) $1,137,000,000,000 in total new budget authority; and

       

      (2) $1,277,000,000,000 in total budget outlays.

       

  • Fore purposes of section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the estimated allocation of the appropriate levels of budget totals for fiscal year 2012 for the Senate Committee on Appropriations shall be–

     

TITLE II–CAP

 

SEC. 201. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact comprehensive tax reform that lowers marginal rates, broadens the base, and simplifies the tax code to increase economic growth while generating revenues that are in line with the historical average of 18% of GDP.

     

SEC. 202. MODIFICATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

    Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting at the end the following:

     

‘SEC. 316. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

      • ‘(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $575,790,000,000 in budget authority; and

         

        ‘(B) for the non-defense category, $435,000,000,000 in budget authority.

         

        ‘(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $593,476,000,000 in budget authority; and

         

        ‘(B) for the non-defense category, $435,000,000,000 in budget authority.

         

        ‘(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $609,549,000,000 in budget authority; and

         

        ‘(B) for the non-defense category, $435,000,000,000 in budget authority.

         

        ‘(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $621,853,000,000 in budget authority; and

         

        ‘(B) for the non-defense category, $435,000,000,000 in budget authority.

         

        ‘(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $634,895,000,000 in budget authority; and

         

        ‘(B) for the non-defense category, $435,000,000,000 in budget authority.

         

        ‘(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $646,458,000,000 in budget authority; and

         

        ‘(B) for the non-defense category, $435,000,000,000 in budget authority.

         

        ‘(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $658,261,000,000 in budget authority; and

         

        ‘(B) for the non-defense category, $435,000,000,000 in budget authority.

         

        ‘(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $667,000,000,000 in budget authority; and

         

        ‘(B) for the non-defense category, $435,000,000,000 in budget authority.

         

        ‘(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $671,000,000,000 in budget authority; and

         

        ‘(B) for the non-defense category, $443,500,000,000 in budget authority.

         

        ‘(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $695,000,000,000 in budget authority; and

         

        ‘(B) for the non-defense category, $457,700,000,000 in budget authority.

         

    • ‘(1) For fiscal year 2012–

       

      ‘(2) For fiscal year 2013–

       

      ‘(3) For fiscal year 2014–

       

      ‘(4) For fiscal year 2015–

       

      ‘(5) For fiscal year 2016–

       

      ‘(6) For fiscal year 2017–

       

      ‘(7) For fiscal year 2018–

       

      ‘(8) For fiscal year 2019–

       

      ‘(9) For fiscal year 2020–

       

      ‘(10) For fiscal year 2021–

       

      ‘(1) the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the budget may adjust the discretionary spending limits provided in this section, the budgetary aggregates in the concurrent resolution on the budget most recently adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives, and allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, by the amount of new budget authority in that measure for that purpose and the outlays flowing there from; and

       

      ‘(2) following any adjustment under paragraph (1), the Senate Committee on Appropriations may report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.

       

      ‘(1) For fiscal year 2012, $126,500,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(2) For fiscal year 2013, $50,000,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(3) For fiscal year 2014, $50,000,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(4) For fiscal year 2015, $50,000,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(5) For fiscal year 2016, $30,800,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(6) For fiscal year 2017, $8,500,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      • ‘(A) by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn; or

         

        ‘(B) in the case of defense budget authority, if Congress declares war or authorizes the use of force

         

    • ‘(1) WAIVER- The provisions of this section shall be waived or suspended in the Senate only–

       

      ‘(2) APPEAL- Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to one hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

       

  • ‘(a) In General- It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause the discretionary spending limits as set forth in this section to be exceeded.

     

    ‘(b) Limits- In this section, the term ‘discretionary spending limits’ has the following meaning:

     

    ‘(c) Adjustments- After the reporting of a bill or joint resolution relating to oversees deployments described in subsection (d), or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon–

     

    ‘(d) Overseas Deployments- If a bill or joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017 that provides funding for overseas deployments and activities undertaken as a result of a declaration of war or Congressional authorization of force, the allowable adjustments provided for in subsection (c) shall not exceed the following:

     

    ‘(e) Point of Order in the Senate-

     

‘SEC. 317. CERTAIN MANDATORY SPENDING LIMITS.

    • ‘(1) Social Security, function 650.

       

      ‘(2) Medicare, function 570.

       

      ‘(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.

       

      ‘(4) Net Interest, function 900.

       

      ‘(1) For fiscal year 2012, $701,640,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(2) For fiscal year 2013, $648,701,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(3) For fiscal year 2014, $580,743,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(4) For fiscal year 2015, $575,423,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(5) For fiscal year 2016, $574,072,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(6) For fiscal year 2017, $568,519,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(7) For fiscal year 2018, $558,645,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(8) For fiscal year 2019, $558,869,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(9) For fiscal year 2020, $566,867,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(10) For fiscal year 2021, $588,162,000,000 in budget authority.

       

      ‘(1) WAIVER- The provisions of this section shall be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

       

      ‘(2) APPEAL- Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to one hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

       

  • ‘(a) In General- It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total on-budget mandatory spending, except as excluded in subsection (b), to exceed the limits specified in subsection (c).

     

    ‘(b) Exempt From Specified Limits- The mandatory components of the following functions are exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):

     

    ‘(c) Limits on Remaining Mandatory Spending- The total combined budget authority for all mandatory spending not exempted in subsection (b) shall not exceed the following limits:

     

    ‘(d) Point of Order in the Senate-

     

‘SEC. 318. LIMITS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY.

      • ‘(A) For fiscal year 2012, total outlays shall be $760,356,000,000.

         

        ‘(B) For fiscal year 2013, total outlays shall be $798,614,000,000.

         

        ‘(C) For fiscal year 2014, total outlays shall be $841,440,000,000.

         

        ‘(D) For fiscal year 2015, total outlays shall be $887,837,000,000.

         

        ‘(E) For fiscal year 2016, total outlays shall be $938,547,000,000.

         

        ‘(F) For fiscal year 2017, total outlays shall be $995,325,000,000.

         

        ‘(G) For fiscal year 2018, total outlays shall be $1,057,552,000,000.

         

        ‘(H) For fiscal year 2019, total outlays shall be $1,123,629,000,000.

         

        ‘(I) For fiscal year 2020, total outlays shall be $1,193,747,000,000.

         

        ‘(J) For fiscal year 2021, total outlays shall be $1,265,566,000,000.

         

    • ‘(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section the limits are as follows:

       

      ‘(2) EXCEPTION- If the Congressional Budget Office determines that projected outlays are expected to exceed the limits specified above due to changes in cost-of-living adjustments contained in present law subsection (c) shall not apply.

       

      ‘(1) WAIVER- The provisions of this section shall be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

       

      ‘(2) APPEAL- Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to one hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

       

  • ‘(a) In General- It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total mandatory spending for Social Security (function 650) to exceed the limits specified in subsection (b).

     

    ‘(b) Limits-

     

    ‘(c) Point of Order in the Senate-

     

‘SEC. 319. LIMITS FOR MEDICARE.

    • ‘(1) For fiscal year 2012, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $488,060,000,000.

       

      ‘(2) For fiscal year 2013, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $530,767,000,000.

       

      ‘(3) For fiscal year 2014, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $560,744,000,000.

       

      ‘(4) For fiscal year 2015, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $585,256,000,000.

       

      ‘(5) For fiscal year 2016, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $634,769,000,000.

       

      ‘(6) For fiscal year 2017, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $657,799,000,000.

       

      ‘(7) For fiscal year 2018, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $682,951,000,000.

       

      ‘(8) For fiscal year 2019, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $745,186,000,000.

       

      ‘(9) For fiscal year 2020, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $800,853,000,000.

       

      ‘(10) For fiscal year 2021, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $858,830,000,000.

       

      ‘(1) WAIVER- The provisions of this section shall be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

       

      ‘(2) APPEAL- Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to one hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

       

  • ‘(a) In General- It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total mandatory spending for Medicare (function 570) to exceed the limits specified in subsection (b).

     

    ‘(b) Limits- For purposes of this section the limits are as follows:

     

    ‘(c) Point of Order in the Senate-

     

‘SEC. 320. LIMITS FOR MANDATORY FUNCTION 700 SPENDING.

    • ‘(1) For fiscal year 2012, total outlays shall not exceed $69,400,000,000.

       

      ‘(2) For fiscal year 2013, total outlays shall not exceed $69,400,000,000.

       

      ‘(3) For fiscal year 2014, total outlays shall not exceed $71,350,000,000.

       

      ‘(4) For fiscal year 2015, total outlays shall not exceed $73,300,000,000.

       

      ‘(5) For fiscal year 2016, total outlays shall not exceed $80,500,000,000.

       

      ‘(6) For fiscal year 2017, total outlays shall not exceed $77,310,000,000.

       

      ‘(7) For fiscal year 2018, total outlays shall not exceed $74,250,000,000.

       

      ‘(8) For fiscal year 2019, total outlays shall not exceed $81,600,000,000.

       

      ‘(9) For fiscal year 2020, total outlays shall not exceed $83,830,000,000.

       

      ‘(10) For fiscal year 2021, total outlays shall not exceed $86,100,000,000.

       

      ‘(1) WAIVER- The provisions of this section shall be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

       

      ‘(2) APPEAL- Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to one hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.’.

       

  • ‘(a) In General- It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total mandatory spending for Veterans Benefits and Services (function 700) to exceed the limits specified in subsection (b).

     

    ‘(b) Limits- For purposes of this section the limits are as follows:

     

    ‘(c) Point of Order in the Senate-

     

SEC. 203. STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT OF SPENDING CAPS THROUGH SEQUESTRATION.

    The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting after section 253 the following:

     

‘SEC. 253A. ENFORCEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY CAPS.

    • ‘(1) REPORT- Not later than 30 calendar days following the start of each fiscal year, the Office of Management and Budget shall make publicly available and cause to be printed in the Federal Register an annual report containing expected budget authority and outlays for the categories and limits established in sections 316 through 320 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The limits established in such sections shall be enforced without regard to the waiver of such limits by either House.

       

      ‘(2) ORDER- If the annual report issued by OMB, as required by paragraph (1), shows any category exceeding specified spending caps, OMB shall prepare and the President shall issue and include in that report a sequestration order that, upon issuance, shall reduce budgetary resources by an amount sufficient to bring spending in line with that category’s statutory cap.

       

      ‘(3) EFFECTIVE DATE- The sequestration order shall take effect no later than 60 days after completion by the OMB.

       

      • ‘(A) For the discretionary limits in section 316 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, pursuant to the section 251 with each category sequestered separately.

         

        ‘(B) For the mandatory limits in section 317 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, pursuant to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, except that section 7 of such Act shall not apply.

         

        ‘(C) For the Social Security limits in section 318 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Social Security Administration shall modify the program so that all benefits and administrative expenses are reduced in a uniform fashion by a percentage sufficient to allow the program to operate under its cap.

         

        ‘(D) For the Medicare limit in section 319 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) shall modify the program so that all outlays are reduced by a uniform percentage sufficient to bring the program under its cap.

         

        ‘(E) For the Veterans Benefits and Services limit in section 320 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall modify the program so that the program operates under its spending cap.

         

    • ‘(1) IN GENERAL- OMB shall calculate the uniform percentage each program within a category that has exceeded its spending cap shall be reduced to bring that category’s budget authority and/or outlays in line with the limits referred to in subsection (a)(1).

       

      ‘(2) IMPLEMENTATION- The sequesters shall be implemented as follows:

       

      ‘(1) IN GENERAL- At any time after the Director of OMB issues a sequestration report, Congress may override the order through the passage of a law that either waves or supersedes the spending limitations for that category of federal spending for that fiscal year.

       

      ‘(2) SENATE- In the Senate, any motion to move to consideration of a bill to waive, modify, or in any way alter a sequestration order shall be subject to a point of order that can only be waived through an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. This point of order shall not apply to defense spending while the nation is engaged in a conflict which has been justified through a declaration of war or a Congressional authorization of force.’.

       

  • ‘(a) Annual Report and Sequestration Order-

     

    ‘(b) Calculating a Sequestration-

     

    ‘(c) Modification of Presidential Order-

     

TITLE III–BALANCE

 

SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT THAT BBA BE SUBMITTED TO STATES.

    (a) In General- The Secretary of the Treasury shall not exercise the additional borrowing authority under subsection (b) ofsection 3101 of title 31, United States Code until the date that the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States S.J. Res. 10 as introduced on March 31, 2011, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment provided it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a super-majority vote in both houses of Congress, for their ratification.

     

    (b) Amendment to Title 31- Effective on the date that the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States S.J. Res. 10, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment provided it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a super-majority vote in both houses of Congress, for their ratification, subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting $16,700,000,000,000.

     

Calendar No. 97

 

112th CONGRESS

 

1st Session

 

S. 1340

 

A BILL

 

To cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget.

 

Gov. Tim Pawlenty To Sign Cut, Cap, Balance Pledge

MINNEAPOLIS — Governor Pawlenty released the following statement today after being the first 2012 presidential candidate to sign the Cut, Cap, Balance pledge.

“I am encouraged by this measure that underscores the dire need to cut spending and balance the budget. Like my economic plan, this pledge will serve to reverse decades of Washington’s fiscal mismanagement,” Gov. Pawlenty said. “Washington has continued to kick the problem of out-of-control spending down the road. President Obama’s economic policies have failed and his Administration has racked up historic burdens of debt for future generations. As president, I would significantly cut federal spending, enforce a spending cap, and pass a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget, so I obviously support congressional leaders who are trying to do that now.”

Gov. Pawlenty recently unveiled his economic plan, ‘A Better Deal,’ at a speech at the University of Chicago where he proposed a constitutional amendment to balance the budget with a federal spending cap of around 18% of GDP. Earlier this year, he warned against raising the debt limit and urged others to reform entitlement spending in a Washington Post Op-ed. Gov. Pawlenty cut state government spending in real terms for the first time in Minnesota’s history and balanced the budget every year during his two terms.