Will Tea Party Caucus Vote As A Block Against Democratic and Republican Establishment Compromise Bill On Raising National Debt Ceiling By $900 Billion, Adding Over $7,000 Billion To National Debt In The Next Ten Years Plus A Huge Tax Hike in 2013?–The American People Would Like To Know!–Videos
Judge Napolitano – U.S. Debt Limit (Law’s of Economics)
Sen. Rand Paul on CNBC’s The Kudlow Report – 08/01/11
Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk: Freeze the Budget and Stop Plundering the American People! Aug 1, 2011
Deficits are Bad, but the Real Problem is Spending
It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes
Did President Manufacture Debt Crisis?
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) Discusses Congressman Connie Mack’s (R-FL) Penny Plan
Senator Marco Rubio: “Save The Whole House Or It Will All Burn Down”
Ron Paul Ad – Conviction
This Is Why We Need Ron Paul 2012 – Wake up Americans and fight!
Harry Reid Eric Cantor Revenue
Debt deal must have balanced budget amendment: Sen. Mike Lee
Ron Paul to Congress: If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It?
“Cut, Cap and Balance,” the Debt Ceiling and Federal Spending
Underwhelming Spending Cuts from Congress and Obama
Klavan, Whittle & Ferreira: Is a Spending Freeze the Answer to US Budgetary Problems
Debt Ceiling Theatrics, U.S. Economy Back in Recession
Andrew Napolitano – The Story of Money
House Roll Call: How they voted on debt-limit bill
“…The 269-161 roll call Monday by which the House passed the compromise bill to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a government default.
A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the measure.
Voting yes were 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans.
Voting no were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans.
X denotes those not voting.
There are 2 vacancies in the 435-member House. …”
Democrats — Brown, N; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Hastings, N; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.
Republicans — Adams, Y; Bilirakis, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mack, N; Mica, Y; Miller, Y; Nugent, Y; Posey, N; Rivera, Y; Rooney, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Stearns, N; Webster, Y; West, Y; Young, Y.
Democrats — Ellison, N; McCollum, N; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.
Republicans — Bachmann, N; Cravaack, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, Y.
Democrats — Fudge, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, N; Sutton, N.
Republicans — Austria, Y; Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gibbs, Y; Johnson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Renacci, Y; Schmidt, Y; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.
Democrats — Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gonzalez, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Reyes, N.
Republicans — Barton, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Canseco, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; Farenthold, Y; Flores, Y; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, N; Olson, Y; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.
The American people want balanced budgets.
The American people oppose adding between $7,000 billion to $8,000 billion to the National debt over the next ten years.
The American people oppose the tax hike of repealing Bush tax rate cuts and locking in tax hikes for Obamacare that this bill would enable.
The American people are not fooled by the so-call spending cuts that are in fact only cuts in the rate of growth of the budget baseline and not actual cuts in the budget baseline itself.
The American people oppose yet another increase the national debt ceiling without either a balanced budget amendment being passed by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate or a balanced budget within three years.
Now is the time for all good tea party members to come to the aid of their country and vote against the Democratic and Republican Party establishment’s compromise bill to raise the National debt ceiling by over $900 billion for Fiscal Year 2011 and add over $7,000 in additional deficit spending and more national debt over the next ten-year.
For the proposed Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 budgets the total effect on deficits is only a reduction of $21 billion and $42 billion respectively excluding any future reductions of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.
The American people are watching to see if the Tea Party caucus votes as a block to defeat this bill.
Those tea party members who vote in favor of the bill will be challenged in the primaries next year and defeated.
The tea party patriots are not pleased with those Tea Party member who apparently sold out and betrayed the tea party.
The tea party and the American people will be watching.
Should this bill pass the Federal Reserve will start printing money with quantitative easing 3 or creating money to purchase Treasury securities or more debt.
Quantitative Easing 3 or creating more money to buy U.S. Treasury securities will begin in the fall after the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee officially determines that the U.S. Economy has been in a recession since the middle of 2010.
Once it is announced the U.S. economy is again in a recession, the Federal Reserve will use this fact to justify another massive money printing program of over $1,000 billion to finance the deficit spending in Fiscal Year 2012 of over $1,000 billion.
This in turn will lead to inflation or a general rise in the price level.
The economy is currently in a another recession that started in July 2010–the dreaded double dip recession.
The result will be even higher unemployment rates and inflation–stagflation.
This bill is not only not perfect, it is an economic disaster in the making.
Vote for this bill and you will be wrecking the economy, destroying jobs and killing the American dream.
The American people will not forget those who voted for this bill–both Democrats and Republicans.
You do not compromise your principles to vote for this bill especially given the damage this bill will cause to the American people and economy.
In 2012 the tea party will double its numbers in the Congress and the Senate with over 100 Representatives and over 12 Senators who have signed the Fiscal Responsibility Pledge.
Judge: You Can’t Get Out of Debt By Spending
American Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
Fiscal Responsibility Pledge
I, ________________________________________, pledge to the taxpayers of the state
of ____________________________, and to the American people that I will:
1. Support and vote for only balanced budgets or surplus budgets where total estimated Federal government tax revenues for each fiscal year equals or exceeds total estimated Federal government spending outlays.
2. Support and vote for only decreases in the national debt ceiling.
3. Support and vote for the FairTax. The FairTax abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax on new goods and services, and administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. Once enacted any changes in the FairTax or increases in the FairTax rate will require two-thirds roll call vote of the House of Representatives and Senate.
4. Support and vote for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
5. Support and vote for a balanced budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United State which allows budget surpluses or requires the balancing of tax revenues and spending outlays each fiscal year, limits Federal Government spending to eight-teen percent (18%) of Gross Domestic Product or less, requires a two-thirds majority roll call vote for any proposed tax increase in the House of Representatives and Senate and where the only exception to a surplus budget or balanced budget is the passage of a declaration of war that would require unbalanced budgets and increases in the national debt.
Signature Date Signed
Pledge must be signed, dated, witnessed and returned to the:
American Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility
10455 N. Central Expressway-#109-228
Dallas, Texas 75231
Background Articles and Videos
The Secret of Oz (by Mr Bill Still)
Michael Savage-August 1, 2011 part 3
Dan Mitchell Exposing DC’s Fake Spending-Cut Scam with Judge Napolitano
Baseline Budgeting Explained
US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions
The NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee
“…The NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle. The chronology comprises alternating dates of peaks and troughs in economic activity. A recession is a period between a peak and a trough, and an expansion is a period between a trough and a peak. During a recession, a significant decline in economic activity spreads across the economy and can last from a few months to more than a year. Similarly, during an expansion, economic activity rises substantially, spreads across the economy, and usually lasts for several years.
In both recessions and expansions, brief reversals in economic activity may occur-a recession may include a short period of expansion followed by further decline; an expansion may include a short period of contraction followed by further growth. The Committee applies its judgment based on the above definitions of recessions and expansions and has no fixed rule to determine whether a contraction is only a short interruption of an expansion, or an expansion is only a short interruption of a contraction. The most recent example of such a judgment that was less than obvious was in 1980-1982, when the Committee determined that the contraction that began in 1981 was not a continuation of the one that began in 1980, but rather a separate full recession.
The Committee does not have a fixed definition of economic activity. It examines and compares the behavior of various measures of broad activity: real GDP measured on the product and income sides, economy-wide employment, and real income. The Committee also may consider indicators that do not cover the entire economy, such as real sales and the Federal Reserve’s index of industrial production (IP). The Committee’s use of these indicators in conjunction with the broad measures recognizes the issue of double-counting of sectors included in both those indicators and the broad measures. Still, a well-defined peak or trough in real sales or IP might help to determine the overall peak or trough dates, particularly if the economy-wide indicators are in conflict or do not have well-defined peaks or troughs.
FAQs – Frequently asked Questions and additional information on how the NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee chooses turning points in the Economy …”
Ron Paul: Freeze The Budget And Stop Plundering American People! – OpEd
Written by: Ron Paul
“…In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase. No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the cuts being discussed are illusory and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in prospective spending increases. This is akin to a family saving $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda.
But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about the unrepentant plundering of the American people. The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith in the credit of the United States being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family’s income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.
In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of cuts that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to cut. It would only take us five years to cut $1 trillion in Washington math just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.
A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply referred to that year’s spending levels, which would hardly do us fear, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever. …”
Congress moving quickly on debt and spending deal
“…Tea party favorite and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., countered that the deal “spends too much and doesn’t cut enough. … Someone has to say no. I will.”
The government presently borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends, and without an infusion of borrowing authority, the government would face an unprecedented default on U.S. loans and obligations — like $23 billion worth of Social Security pension payments to retirees due Aug. 3.
The increased borrowing authority includes $400 billion that would take effect immediately and $500 billion that Obama could order unless specifically denied by Congress. That $900 billion increase in the debt cap would be matched by savings produced over the coming decade by capping spending on day-to-day agency budgets passed by Congress each year.
A special bipartisan committee would be established to find up to $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts, probably taken from benefit programs like farm subsidies, Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. Republicans dismissed the idea that the panel would approve tax increases.
Any agreement by the panel would be voted on by both House and Senate — and if the panel deadlocked, automatic spending cuts would slash across much of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps would be exempt from the automatic cuts, but payments to doctors, nursing homes and other Medicare providers could be trimmed, as could subsidies to insurance companies that offer an alternative to government-run Medicare.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he’d have to “swallow hard” and vote for the legislation even though he is worried about cuts in defense spending. …”
Tea Party Caucus
The Tea Party Caucus is a caucus of the United States House of Representatives and Senate launched and chaired by Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on July 16, 2010. The caucus is dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility, adherence to the movement’s interpretation of the Constitution, and limited government. The idea of a Tea Party Caucus originated from Kentucky Senator Rand Paul when he was campaigning for his current seat.
The caucus was approved as an official congressional member organization by the House Administration Committee on July 19, 2010 and held its first meeting on July 21. Its first public event was a press conference on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol, also on July 21. Four Senators joined the caucus on January 27, 2011.
Members, 112th Congress
The caucus chairman is Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. As of March 31, 2011 the committee has 60 members, all Republicans.
- Sandy Adams, Florida
- Robert Aderholt, Alabama
- Todd Akin, Missouri
- Rodney Alexander, Louisiana
- Michele Bachmann, Minnesota, Chairman
- Roscoe Bartlett, Maryland
- Joe Barton, Texas
- Gus Bilirakis, Florida
- Rob Bishop, Utah
- Diane Black, Tennessee
- Michael C. Burgess, Texas
- Paul Broun, Georgia
- Dan Burton, Indiana
- John Carter, Texas
- Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
- Howard Coble, North Carolina
- Mike Coffman, Colorado
- Chip Cravaack, Minnesota
- Ander Crenshaw, Florida
- John Culberson, Texas
- Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
- Blake Farenthold, Texas
- Stephen Fincher, Tennessee
- John Fleming, Louisiana
- Trent Franks, Arizona
- Phil Gingrey, Georgia
- Louie Gohmert, Texas
- Vicky Hartzler, Missouri
- Wally Herger, California
- Tim Huelskamp, Kansas
- Lynn Jenkins, Kansas
- Steve King, Iowa
- Doug Lamborn, Colorado
- Jeff Landry, Louisiana
- Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
- Kenny Marchant, Texas
- Tom McClintock, California
- David McKinley, West Virginia
- Gary Miller, California
- Mick Mulvaney, South Carolina
- Randy Neugebauer, Texas
- Rich Nugent, Florida
- Steve Pearce, New Mexico
- Mike Pence, Indiana
- Ted Poe, Texas
- Tom Price, Georgia
- Denny Rehberg, Montana
- Phil Roe, Tennessee
- Dennis Ross, Florida
- Ed Royce, California
- Steve Scalise, Louisiana
- Tim Scott, South Carolina
- Pete Sessions, Texas
- Adrian Smith, Nebraska
- Lamar Smith, Texas
- Cliff Stearns, Florida
- Tim Walberg, Michigan
- Joe Walsh, Illinois
- Allen West, Florida
- Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia
- Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Members of Senate Caucus
- Jim DeMint (South Carolina)
- Mike Lee (Utah)
- Jerry Moran (Kansas)
- Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Aronoff: Media’s Disgraceful Coverage of Debt-Ceiling Debate
“…The general performance of the media during the debt ceiling debate has been atrocious. The currency of journalists consists of words, and by completely debasing that currency, they are undermining their profession. They are also making it that much more difficult for the public to understand the choices and the consequences they are facing.
The constant reference to August 2nd being the date we default on our debt is utterly false. ABC has shown a “Countdown to Default” clock, ticking away to August 2nd. CNN has run similar graphics, as have all the networks, including the Fox News Channel. Even today MSNBC is showing a graphic that says, “Four Days to Default.” They have continued right through this week. Default occurs only if and when the U.S. fails to make interest payments to the bondholders on the debt it owes. Not only is August 2nd not the day the U.S. defaults on its debt, but the issue could easily be taken off the table, and President Obama could calm the markets by announcing that under no circumstances will he allow the U.S. to default, and he could assure that by saying he will definitely make that payment the highest priority until a deal is reached in Congress. Instead, he chose to have the debt ceiling “used as a gun against the heads” of Americans, which is exactly what he accused the Republicans of doing earlier this month, in language that was supposed to be no longer acceptable after the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson last January.
Charles Gasparino of Fox Business News reported this week that the Obama administration has begun calling major Wall Street banks to assure them that the U.S. won’t default on its debt. Sources have told me that the administration is also trying to get the banks to lobby on its behalf.
The other egregious falsehood reveals an astounding lack of knowledge, or willingness to deceive, about the difference between the deficit and the national debt. Here, for example, from Jake Tapper of ABC News: “The president continues to push for a ‘grand bargain,’ buoyed by the bipartisan ‘Gang of Six’ proposal that would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next decade through spending cuts and tax increases.”
And here, from Stephanie Condon of CBS News: “The deal would reduce the deficit by nearly $4 trillion…”
President Obama in his July 25th prime time address to the country said, “This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit (emphasis added) by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt.
This misuse of the language has been the rule, not the exception. As explained on the Treasury Department’s own website, “The deficit is the difference between the money Government takes in, called receipts, and what the Government spends, called outlays, each year.” (emphasis added) The same website says that “One way to think about the debt is as accumulated deficits.” This is basic economics, but astonishingly, the President and most of the media constantly get it wrong. Is it on purpose, to mislead, or do they not understand the difference? …”
Which Budgets Are Balanced And Living Within The Means of The American People?
4/5/11 Republican Leadership Press Conference
Democratic Party Budget Proposals
S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget
(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
|Fiscal Year||Outlays||Revenues||Deficits||Debt Held By Public|
Republican Party Budget Proposals
S-1 FY2012 Chairman’s Markup
(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
|Fiscal Year||Outlays||Revenues||Deficits||Debt Held By Public|
Sen. Toomey Unveils his FY 2012 Budget
Senator Pat Toomey Talks with Michael Medved about his Budget
|S-1 FY2012 Senator Pat Toomey(Nominal Dollars in Billions)|
|Fiscal Year||Outlays||Revenues||DeficitsSurplus||Debt Held By Public|
SA@TAC – The GOP, War and the Debt
3/09/11: Sen. Rand Paul on balancing the budget
03/17/11: Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan
|S-1 FY2012 Senator Rand Paul(Nominal Dollars in Billions)|
|Fiscal Year||Outlays||Revenues||DeficitsSurpluses||Debt Held By Public|
Tea Party Budget Proposals
|S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)|
|Fiscal Year||Outlays||Revenues||Surpluses||Debt Held By Public|
“…Baseline budgeting is a method of developing a budget which uses existing spending levels as the basis for establishing future funding requirements. The concept assumes that the organization is generally headed in the right direction and only minor changes in spending levels will be required. The baseline is normally enhanced by adding adjustment factors based on issues such as inflation, new programs, and anticipated changes to existing programs.
The genesis of baseline budget projections can be found in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. That act required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare projections of federal spending for the upcoming fiscal year based on a continuation of the existing level of governmental services. It also required the newly established Congressional Budget Office to prepare five-year projections of budget authority, outlays, revenues, and the surplus or deficit. OMB published its initial current-services budget projections in November 1974, and CBO’s five-year projections first appeared in January 1976. Today’s baseline budget projections are very much like those prepared more than two decades ago, although they now span 10 years instead of five.
The Budget Act was silent on whether to adjust estimates of discretionary appropriations for anticipated changes in inflation. Until 1980, OMB’s projections excluded inflation adjustments for discretionary programs. CBO’s projections, however, assumed that appropriations would keep pace with inflation, although CBO has also published projections without these so-called discretionary inflation adjustments.
CBO’s budget projections took on added importance in 1980 and 1981, when they served as the baseline for computing spending reductions to be achieved in the budget reconciliation process. The reconciliation instructions contained in the fiscal year 1982 budget resolution (the so-called Gramm-Latta budget) required House and Senate committees to reduce outlays by a total of $36 billion below baseline levels, but each committee could determine how those savings were to be achieved. The CBO baseline has been used in every year since 1981 for developing budget resolutions and measuring compliance with reconciliation instructions.
The Deficit Control Act of 1985 provided the first legal definition of baseline. For the most part, the act defined the baseline in conformity with previous usage. If appropriations had not been enacted for the upcoming fiscal year, the baseline was to assume the previous year’s level without any adjustment for inflation. In 1987, however, the Congress amended the definition of the baseline so that discretionary appropriations would be adjusted to keep pace with inflation. Other technical changes to the definition of the baseline were enacted in 1990, 1993, and 1997.
Baseline budget projections increasingly became the subject of political debate and controversy during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and more recently during the 2011 debt limit debate. Some critics contend that baseline projections create a bias in favor of spending by assuming that federal spending keeps pace with inflation and other factors driving the growth of entitlement programs. Changes that merely slow the growth of federal spending programs have often been described as cuts in spending, when in reality they are actually reductions in the rate of spending growth.
There have been attempts to eliminate the baseline budget concept and replace it with zero based budgeting, which is the opposite of baseline budgeting. Zero based budgeting requires that all spending must be re-justified each year or it will be eliminated from the budget regardless of previous spending levels.
According to the Government Accountability Office, a Baseline is as follows:
“An estimate of spending, revenue, the deficit or surplus, and the public debt expected during a fiscal year under current laws and current policy. The baseline is a benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in revenues and spending. It assumes that receipts and mandatory spending will continue or expire in the future as required by law and that the future funding for discretionary programs will equal the most recently enacted appropriation, adjusted for inflation. Under the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), which will expire at the end of fiscal year 2006, the baseline is defined as the projection of current-year levels of new budget authority, outlays, revenues, and the surplus or deficit into the budget year and outyears based on laws enacted through the applicable date.
Projected levels of governmental receipts (revenues), budget authority, and outlays for the budget year and subsequent fiscal years, assuming generally that current policies remain the same, except as directed by law. The baseline is described in the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) annual report for the House and Senate Budget Committees, The Budget and Economic Outlook, which is published in January. The baseline, by law, includes projections for 5 years, but at the request of the Budget Committees, CBO has provided such projections for 10 years. In most years the CBO baseline is revised in conjunction with CBO’s analysis of the President’s budget, which is usually issued in March, and again during the summer. The “March” baseline is the benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed legislation under consideration by Congress.” …”
Most Voters Are Unhappy With Both Sides in the Debt Ceiling Debate
“…Most voters don’t care much for the way either political party is performing in the federal debt ceiling debate.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat disapprove of the way President Obama and congressional Democrats are handling the debate over the debt ceiling, with 38% who Strongly Disapprove. But 53% also disapprove of how congressional Republicans are handling the debate, including 32% who Strongly Disapprove.
Just 36% approve of how Obama and Democrats are doing, with 10% who Strongly Approve. Forty percent (40%) approve of the GOP’s performance, including 13% who Strongly Approve. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
While the two sides continue to wrangle over how to avoid defaulting on the government’s massive debt load, most voters nationwide are worried the final deal will raise taxes too much and cut spending too little.
Whatever spending cuts are in the final deal, 49% of all voters don’t think the government will actually cut the spending agreed upon. A commentary by Scott Rasmussen, published in Politico, put it this way: “Based on the history of the past few decades, voters have learned that politicians promising unspecified spending cuts should be treated with all the credibility of a six-year old boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar promising to be good for the rest of his life.” …”
55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal
“…As the Beltway politicians try to figure out how they will raise the debt ceiling and for how long, most voters oppose including tax hikes in the deal.
Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not. …”
“…There is a huge partisan divide on the question. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats want a tax hike in the deal while 82% of Republicans do not. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 35% favor a tax hike and 51% are opposed.
Americans who earn more than $75,000 a year are evenly divided as to whether a tax hike should be included in the debt ceiling deal. Those who earn less are opposed to including tax hikes.
Voters remain very concerned about the debt ceiling issue. Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe that it would be bad for the economy if a failure to raise the debt ceiling led to government defaults. Only 6% believe it would be good for theeconomy. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it would have no impact and 11% are notsure. These figures are little changed from a few weeks ago. …”
House passes Ryan’s ’12 budget; conservatives want more cuts
“…The House on Friday approved a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution from Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that seeks to drastically limit government spending next year and in years to follow.
But the vote on the measure — which imposes $5.8 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade — came after a clear sign that at least half of the Republican Caucus supports even tougher spending cuts.
The final tally was 235-193, with four Republicans opposing it. They were Reps. Ron Paul (Texas), Denny Rehberg (Mont.), Walter Jones (N.C.) and David McKinley (W.Va.).
Rehberg, the appropriator in charge of health spending, is running for Montana’s Senate seat.
Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said listening sessions with Republican members made it the strongest vote of the year.
“This is the process we should follow on all votes,” he said.
Every Democrat voted “no.” …”
House passes cut, cap and balance — and a deal is in sight
“…The Republican-controlled House defied a presidential veto threat Tuesday night in approving a bill to amend the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget. But Speaker John A. Boehner acknowledged that a backup plan is needed, and a Senate GOP leader said he expects such an alternative to win his chamber’s approval.
The House voted 234 to 190 in favor of the “Cut, Cap and Balance Act,” which the White House has said will be vetoed in the unlikely event it passes the Senate and reaches President Obama’s desk. Faced with those prospects, Boehner told reporters that it would also be responsible to consider a backup plan for raising the federal debt ceiling and thus averting a potentially disastrous default on U.S. obligations.