Marco Rubio: "Why I Won't Vote To Raise The Debt Limit"

[qh4dotcom]

An e-mail I received



"Why I Won't Vote To Raise The Debt Limit"
By Marco Rubio, The Wall Street Journal
March 30, 2011
Americans have built the single greatest nation in all of human history. But America's exceptionalism was not preordained. Every generation has had to confront and solve serious challenges and, because they did, each has left the next better off. Until now.

Our generation's greatest challenge is an economy that isn't growing, alongside a national debt that is. If we fail to confront this, our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a country worse off than the one their parents were given.

Current federal policies make it harder for job creators to start and grow businesses. Taxes on individuals are complicated and set to rise in less than two years. Corporate taxes will soon be the highest in the industrialized world. Federal agencies torment job creators with an endless string of rules and regulations.

On top of all this, we have an unsustainable national debt. Leaders of both parties have grown our government for decades by spending money we didn't have. To pay for it, they borrowed $4 billion a day, leaving us with today's $14 trillion debt. Half of that debt is held by foreign investors, mostly China. And there is no plan to stop. In fact, President Obama's latest budget request spends more than $46 trillion over the next decade. Under this plan, public debt will equal 87% of our economy in less than 10 years. This will scare away job creators and lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates and greater inflation.

Betting on America used to be a sure thing, but job creators see the warning signs that our leaders ignore. Even the world's largest bond fund, PIMCO, recently dumped its holdings of U.S. debt.

We're therefore at a defining moment in American history. In a few weeks, we will once again reach our legal limit for borrowing, the so-called debt ceiling. The president and others want to raise this limit. They say it is the mature, responsible thing to do.

In fact, it's nothing more than putting off the tough decisions until after the next election. We cannot afford to continue waiting. This may be our last chance to force Washington to tackle the central economic issue of our time.

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

There is still time to accomplish all this. Rep. Dave Camp has already introduced proposals to lower and simplify our tax rates, close loopholes, and make permanent low rates on capital gains and dividends. Even Mr. Obama has endorsed the idea of lowering our corporate tax rate. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, has a bill that would require an up-or-down vote on "major" regulations, those that cost the economy $100 million or more. And the House has already passed a spending plan this year that lowered discretionary spending by $862 billion over 10 years.

Such reductions are important, but nondefense discretionary spending is a mere 19% of the budget. Focusing on this alone would lead to draconian cuts to essential and legitimate programs. To get our debt under control, we must reform and save our entitlement programs.

No changes should be made to Medicare and Social Security for people who are currently in the system, like my mother. But people decades away from retirement, like me, must accept that reforms are necessary if we want Social Security and Medicare to exist at all by the time we are eligible for them.

Finally, instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio. A comprehensive plan would wind down our debt to sustainable levels of approximately 60% within a decade and no more than half of the economy shortly thereafter. If Congress fails to meet these debt targets, automatic across-the-board spending reductions should be triggered to close the gap. These public debt caps could go in tandem with a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis.

I know that by writing this, I am inviting political attack. When I proposed reforms to Social Security during my campaign, my opponent spent millions on attack ads designed to frighten seniors. But demagoguery is the last refuge of the spineless politician willing to do anything to win the next election.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in Washington knows how to solve these problems. What is missing is the political will to do it. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I want my children to inherit what I inherited: the greatest nation in human history. It's not too late. The 21st century can also be the American Century. Our people are ready. Now it's time for their leaders to join them.

Mr. Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.

[sailingaway]

'Because people were calling me a wuss when Rand Paul refused to vote for the compromise extension and I did... I can't lose that much of my base and mojo, or I'll never be picked for a VP candidate....'

[eduardo89]

Rubio is so fake.

[thedude]

'Because people were calling me a wuss when Rand Paul refused to vote for the compromise extension and I did... I can't lose that much of my base and mojo, or I'll never be picked for a VP candidate....'

Pretty much how I read it

[Cowlesy]

Marco Rubio: "Why I Won't Vote To Raise The Debt Limit"

Real Reason: Because enough more moderate Republicans will do so that'll indirectly cover my ass and let me vote conservative. If McConnell needed my vote, I'd hut-hut! to it.

[qh4dotcom]

Marco Rubio: "Why I Won't Vote To Raise The Debt Limit"

Real Reason: Because enough more moderate Republicans will do so that'll indirectly cover my ass and let me vote conservative. If McConnell needed my vote, I'd hut-hut! to it.

Good point....plus there's no money for the wars and foreign aid he supports if the debt limit is not raised.

[Sola_Fide]

This weasel thinks he can all the sudden steal Rand's talking points when it thinks it will help him politically....

[Stary Hickory]

Marco Rubio: "Why I Won't Vote To Raise The Debt Limit"

Real Reason: Because enough more moderate Republicans will do so that'll indirectly cover my ass and let me vote conservative. If McConnell needed my vote, I'd hut-hut! to it.

Kinda my feeling too, although I suspect he is little more principled than this. However if Rubio was casting the deciding vote on the matter I doubt he would be making press releases like this.

Still its a positive its being said at all, and Rubio carries some weight.

[doodle]

Rubio should be impeached or sent back to another war mongeriung trip to Israel. He is worse neocon than Obama.

[amy31416]

If we're looking at Rand for 2016--Rubio (and possibly Jeb Bush) are probably the biggest competition he'll have...

Looking at the crop of potential 2012 GOP contenders (aside from Ron, and possibly Rand), I honestly don't think that the GOP has a chance in 2012. Mitt's a joke, Newt's a scumbag, Pawlenty inspires nada, Herman Cain (who?), Trump (yeah), Bachman (are you kidding?), etc. Honestly, I don't think they care much, since Obama's doing all the neocon dirty work and continuing to push independents toward the GOP. 2016 is when enough people will have "forgotten" about the Bush administration's BS, and it will give them enough time to "ripen" the Rubio--and he's pretty, and polished--and has the perception of being an "outsider" (ha), which would be a nice counter-balance to the establishment guy Jeb Bush. Both will probably run with some W. Bush 2000 "humble foreign policy" garbage in 2016.

Obviously, that's all just speculation on my part--but if I'm putting myself in the shoes of a neocon/status quo Republican, that sounds like a pretty damned good plan. It's our job to keep throwing the monkey wrenches at 'em, and work our asses off getting the true conservative message out there, along with showing these shysters for who they really are.

[Matt Collins]

Rand vs Rubio for VP this time around.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand vs Rubio for VP this time around.

Hmmmm.

[acptulsa]

Rand vs Rubio for VP this time around.

:confused: You talking about some poll?

[Matt Collins]

:confused: You talking about some poll?
No I'm talking about if Ron doesn't get the nomination we want Ron's delegates to support whichever candidate chooses Rand as their VP. Rubio will be our biggest competitor in that endeavor though.

[ronaldo23]

there's no candidate even close to Rand on the issues. What makes you think Rand would in a million years take the VP job of Romney, Pawlenty or Gingrich? VPs don't actually do anything most of the time, as evidenced by Joe Biden...I don't think Biden is even in Obama's inner circle. Any neocon nominee would delegate the same role for Rand, and not make him a cheney-like VP

[angelatc]

I think he forgot to put "again" at the end of his sentence.

[Matt Collins]

there's no candidate even close to Rand on the issues. What makes you think Rand would in a million years take the VP job of Romney, Pawlenty or Gingrich? VPs don't actually do anything most of the time, as evidenced by Joe Biden...I don't think Biden is even in Obama's inner circle. Any neocon nominee would delegate the same role for Rand, and not make him a cheney-like VP
The VP gets to run the Senate.

Art I Sec 3:
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate"

[acptulsa]

there's no candidate even close to Rand on the issues. What makes you think Rand would in a million years take the VP job of Romney, Pawlenty or Gingrich? VPs don't actually do anything most of the time, as evidenced by Joe Biden...I don't think Biden is even in Obama's inner circle. Any neocon nominee would delegate the same role for Rand, and not make him a cheney-like VP

Absolutely. He could decide tie votes in the Senate. Yay. Wouldn't be surprised if Rand turned Rubio down just because he fears the vp doesn't get enough debate time in the Senate.

It isn't like the much vaunted President of the Senate sets the agenda or anything. The Majority Leader has most control over that. The Minority Leader has more sway than the vp.

[amy31416]

If a Republican (aside from Ron or Rand) wins in 2012, it will mean the death of any momentum we have--just like Obama killed the anti-war left, a Republican president will kill the pro-Constitution/liberty/fiscal conservative right.

Sadly, it is a reality that Obama hatred keeps the door open for alternatives that would not otherwise be considered.

Just my opinion, of course.

[low preference guy]

If a Republican (aside from Ron or Rand) wins in 2012, it will mean the death of any momentum we have--just like Obama killed the anti-war left, a Republican president will kill the pro-Constitution/liberty/fiscal conservative right.

Sadly, it is a reality that Obama hatred keeps the door open for alternatives that would not otherwise be considered.

Just my opinion, of course.

If Obama wins, it will likely also kill all our efforts, because it's likely he'll appoint a fifth Supreme Court justice that believes the Constitution is a living document.

[low preference guy]

Rubio will be our biggest competitor in that endeavor though.

Rubio: I won’t be on the ticket next year (http://www.rollcall.com/news/rubio_wont_run_on_gop_presidential_ticket_in_2012_-204551-1.html)

[amy31416]

If Obama wins, it will likely also kill all our efforts, because it's likely he'll appoint a fifth Supreme Court justice that believes the Constitution is a living document.

As I said, just my opinion.

And I doubt that Romney or whomever would appoint someone much better. There are plenty of perils with another 4 years of Obama, just as there are with 4 years of a neocon/RINO.

[Matt Collins]

If Obama wins, it will likely also kill all our efforts, because it's likely he'll appoint a fifth Supreme Court justice that believes the Constitution is a living document.As if it's not already that way now. :(

[Matt Collins]

Rubio: I won’t be on the ticket next year (http://www.rollcall.com/news/rubio_wont_run_on_gop_presidential_ticket_in_2012_-204551-1.html)Yeah, that'll change I'm positive of that.

The RNC wants him so bad they can taste it. Hispanics are by and large family oriented conservatives but largely go with the Dems because of the immigration issue and also because the Dems tend to cater to them (as the GOP does to the evangelicals). Not only that, but Florida is currently key to any national election and Rubio would deliver Florida for the RNC.


Trust me, they'll do whatever it takes to get Rubio on board for the VP slot come convention time.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, that'll change I'm positive of that.

If someone who would ask him gets the nomination, Amy's most dire fears will come true. So, I think we had better find a way to prevent this. And I don't see anyone I trust asking Jeb just to get the Florida vote, either.

[low preference guy]

As if it's not already that way now. :(

It will be a lot worse if Kennedy's seat goes to a leftist.

[low preference guy]

Yeah, that'll change I'm positive of that.

It won't, I'm positive of that.

[acptulsa]

It will be a lot worse if Kennedy's seat goes to a leftist.

The Supreme Court has no choice but to continue to go to hell in a bucket until we get a Constitutionalist in the White House.

And even then the confirmation battles are liable to be godawful unless we can get some more of them into Congress.

[Matt Collins]

If a Republican (aside from Ron or Rand) wins in 2012, it will mean the death of any momentum we have--just like Obama killed the anti-war left, a Republican president will kill the pro-Constitution/liberty/fiscal conservative right..Yeah it depends on which Republican gets chosen to be the nominee. If it's another Democrat-lite then the conservatives will stay home. Although the liberals will probably stay home too given Obama's recent antics. So if the GOP props up the right statist, it might be a race to see which side has more apathy about their respective candidate.

[amy31416]

Yeah it depends on which Republican gets chosen to be the nominee. If it's another Democrat-lite then the conservatives will stay home. Although the liberals will probably stay home too given Obama's recent antics. So if the GOP props up the right statist, it might be a race to see which side has more apathy about their respective candidate.

Aside from Romney, are there any other Democrat-lites running? Perhaps Trump could be put in that category.

[Matt Collins]

It won't, I'm positive of that.
Why do you say that? :confused:

[qh4dotcom]

If Obama wins, it will likely also kill all our efforts, because it's likely he'll appoint a fifth Supreme Court justice that believes the Constitution is a living document.
Well, it's easy to kick out Sotomayor and Kagan...an immigrant from Kenya has no constitutional authority to be picking who goes to the Supreme Court...only a natural born citizen president can do that.

[awake]

It should read :
"Why I Won't Vote To Raise The Debt Limit" [unless I get a sweet deal.]

[low preference guy]

Why do you say that? :confused:

I'm just mocking you.

[Theocrat]

An e-mail I received


"Why I Won't Vote To Raise The Debt Limit"
By Marco Rubio, The Wall Street Journal
March 30, 2011
Americans have built the single greatest nation in all of human history. But America's exceptionalism was not preordained. Every generation has had to confront and solve serious challenges and, because they did, each has left the next better off. Until now.

Our generation's greatest challenge is an economy that isn't growing, alongside a national debt that is. If we fail to confront this, our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a country worse off than the one their parents were given.

Current federal policies make it harder for job creators to start and grow businesses. Taxes on individuals are complicated and set to rise in less than two years. Corporate taxes will soon be the highest in the industrialized world. Federal agencies torment job creators with an endless string of rules and regulations.

On top of all this, we have an unsustainable national debt. Leaders of both parties have grown our government for decades by spending money we didn't have. To pay for it, they borrowed $4 billion a day, leaving us with today's $14 trillion debt. Half of that debt is held by foreign investors, mostly China. And there is no plan to stop. In fact, President Obama's latest budget request spends more than $46 trillion over the next decade. Under this plan, public debt will equal 87% of our economy in less than 10 years. This will scare away job creators and lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates and greater inflation.

Betting on America used to be a sure thing, but job creators see the warning signs that our leaders ignore. Even the world's largest bond fund, PIMCO, recently dumped its holdings of U.S. debt.

We're therefore at a defining moment in American history. In a few weeks, we will once again reach our legal limit for borrowing, the so-called debt ceiling. The president and others want to raise this limit. They say it is the mature, responsible thing to do.

In fact, it's nothing more than putting off the tough decisions until after the next election. We cannot afford to continue waiting. This may be our last chance to force Washington to tackle the central economic issue of our time.

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

There is still time to accomplish all this. Rep. Dave Camp has already introduced proposals to lower and simplify our tax rates, close loopholes, and make permanent low rates on capital gains and dividends. Even Mr. Obama has endorsed the idea of lowering our corporate tax rate. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, has a bill that would require an up-or-down vote on "major" regulations, those that cost the economy $100 million or more. And the House has already passed a spending plan this year that lowered discretionary spending by $862 billion over 10 years.

Such reductions are important, but nondefense discretionary spending is a mere 19% of the budget. Focusing on this alone would lead to draconian cuts to essential and legitimate programs. To get our debt under control, we must reform and save our entitlement programs.

No changes should be made to Medicare and Social Security for people who are currently in the system, like my mother. But people decades away from retirement, like me, must accept that reforms are necessary if we want Social Security and Medicare to exist at all by the time we are eligible for them.

Finally, instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio. A comprehensive plan would wind down our debt to sustainable levels of approximately 60% within a decade and no more than half of the economy shortly thereafter. If Congress fails to meet these debt targets, automatic across-the-board spending reductions should be triggered to close the gap. These public debt caps could go in tandem with a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis.

I know that by writing this, I am inviting political attack. When I proposed reforms to Social Security during my campaign, my opponent spent millions on attack ads designed to frighten seniors. But demagoguery is the last refuge of the spineless politician willing to do anything to win the next election.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in Washington knows how to solve these problems. What is missing is the political will to do it. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I want my children to inherit what I inherited: the greatest nation in human history. It's not too late. The 21st century can also be the American Century. Our people are ready. Now it's time for their leaders to join them.

Mr. Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.

I'm curious as to why Rubio didn't mention how our overseas spending (mainly in military/defense) contributes to our national debt. As a huge advocate for the U.S.'s involvement in foreign countries, would he still raise the debt limit if it required us to fund more wars?

[Matt Collins]

I'm just mocking you.Why would I expect anything else from you :rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

Aside from Romney, are there any other Democrat-lites running? Perhaps Trump could be put in that category.

Hard to say who is and isn't running this early. But if his past campaign contributions are any indication, Trump isn't just a Democrate Lite Republican, but a Democratic troll in the works. I also don't see Pawlenty winning in Minnesota unless he fit the description. And he did win in Minnesota.