House passes "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act" H R 2560

[harikaried]

234 - 190
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll606.xml

aka House approves $2.4 trillion debt ceiling increase.

At least it sounds like the Senate (and President) won't pass it.

[tsai3904]

Justin Amash's responses to comments on Facebook:


With all due respect to Dr. Ron Paul, I believe he is wrong on this issue, as does Dr. Rand Paul.


Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and I disagree with Ron Paul on this matter. I will provide you with a point-by-point response to Ron Paul's statement as soon as possible.

According to Amash, the bill only cuts $82 billion in fiscal year 2012 from fiscal year 2011 levels. That doesn't sound like a significant cut to me.

[Matt Collins]

"This is far from the Pledge’s call for ‘substantial’ cuts”

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Today, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement outlining his opposition to the House version of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. See statement below.


“While I applaud the spirit of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act (CCB) and appreciate how it has shaped the debate to include a permanent solution to our deficit crisis, I could not support the legislation as it was presented today.

“Though I broke with many of my friends in Congress by voting against the House CCB plan, I was the first Presidential Candidate to sign the Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge, as I believed in its call for ‘substantial’ spending cuts, hard caps, and a Balanced Budget Amendment.


“These difficult times require that presidential candidates be willing to lead on this issue by standing against runaway spending and promoting real changes to ensure future prosperity.


“If elected President, I will veto any spending bill that contributes to an unbalanced budget, and I will balance the budget in the first year of my term. I will also fight for and sign an iron clad Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution.


“I have never voted to raise the federal debt limit, and I have no doubt that we face financial collapse and ruin if we continue to grow our debt. We need to make major spending cuts now, in this budget, and we can no longer afford to allow more deficit spending based on promises of future cuts.

“The CCB act would add $2.4 trillion of new debt to our gargantuan $14.4 trillion debt. CCB would also only cut $111 billion from this year’s budget, allowing a deficit of nearly $1.5 trillion. This is far from the Pledge’s call for ‘substantial’ cuts. And, CCB locks us into current levels of overseas welfare, which will continue to endanger America’s security by forcing us to subsidize other wealthy nations.

“For decades, politicians have promised future restraint in exchange for hikes in the debt limit. Each time, it’s said that if we act immediately to avoid a crisis, we will give the matter proper debate at the next vote. But, time and again, politicians reveal themselves to be untrustworthy. Promises of cuts remain unfulfilled, and we soon find ourselves once more in a crisis that we are told can only be addressed by upholding the status quo yet again.

“Many of my friends have made the case that, despite this bill’s shortcomings, CCB should be supported in order to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. CCB, unfortunately, does not guarantee a Balanced Budget Amendment will ever pass. It would still have to be ratified by the States, a process that could take years and perhaps even fail.

“If we want a Balanced Budget Amendment to be the silver bullet against Big Government that many hope it will be, it must be iron clad. The CCB Balanced Budget Amendment removed the two-thirds threshold requirement to exceed spending caps, which would be too easy for politicians to violate.


“Though I voted against today’s House version of Cut, Cap, and Balance, I continue to support the Pledge’s goals, and I remain committed to working on behalf of the American people to drastically reduce spending and implement fundamental changes that will reform government and restore our nation’s prosperity.”

[Feeding the Abscess]

Guy who has fought government spending and expansion of the state for over 30 years, day after day after day, opposes a pathetic piece of DC speak legislation.

Guys who just got in the game criticize him and claim to be right.

Yeah, I know which side I'm on.

[Romulus]

Justin Amash's responses to comments on Facebook:





According to Amash, the bill only cuts $82 billion in fiscal year 2012 from fiscal year 2011 levels. That doesn't sound like a significant cut to me.

Hmm.. sorry Justin, but I stand with Ron on this.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand claimed that this BBA would bring a balanced budget in 7 years.

Size of government/GDP wouldn't be capped at 20% until 2021 (which is a ridiculous proposal in and of itself)

So either the economy is going to grow at 10+% for seven plus years, or taxes would have to be raised.

What a loser of a proposal, I can't believe Rand is actually pushing this crap.

And he thinks Ron is wrong on this? What a failure.

This is why people were pissed at Rand during the campaign: I and many others cannot and will not stand for being squishy and engaging in Washington bullshit politics.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm with Ron on this one too.

[ghengis86]

Guy who has fought government spending and expansion of the state for over 30 years, day after day after day, opposes a pathetic piece of DC speak legislation.

Guys who just got in the game criticize him and claim to be right.

Yeah, I know which side I'm on.

Yeah, me too.

+1776

[Hotchney]

Can't really get up in arms about this for either side. I don't feel as if Amash or Rand Paul are selling out- I think they just see it as a piece of legislation that could potentially get passed and make meaningful cuts. Also, I feel as though a BBA might actually stand a chance of passing given GOP control of legislatures.

[dannno]

Guy who has fought government spending and expansion of the state for over 30 years, day after day after day, opposes a pathetic piece of DC speak legislation.

Guys who just got in the game criticize him and claim to be right.

Yeah, I know which side I'm on.

Sounds like somebody got to the new guys and they bought it.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Meh.

[bwlibertyman]

I heard talk about the senate getting rid of the "alternative minimum income tax." This is great news. The AMI is for those rich people who can use credits and deductions to offset most if not all of their income tax. If we get rid of it hopefully people can pay no income tax. I assume they're going to get rid of "loopholes" aka "credits and deductions".

I also heard they want to increase income tax revenue while lowering tax rates. I assume this means increase it on the wealthy but decrease on the lower levels where the "average" level tax rate would be lowered.

Some good things that I would support. Not raising taxes of course but getting rid of the ami would be great imo.

[Brett85]

I agree with Ron on this, but I'm not going to criticize Rand for supporting a proposal that contains spending caps and a balanced budget amendment.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I agree with Ron on this, but I'm not going to criticize Rand for supporting a proposal that contains spending caps and a balanced budget amendment.

Perhaps looking at the graph I provided and realizing that:

1. This proposal is an inherent admission that several years of unbalanced budgets are on its way, and some of those opposed to deficits will be mollified with this phony proposal

and

2. Budgets will continue to be unbalanced until taxes are raised to meet the 20% of GDP cap placed on spending

will change your mind on not criticizing Rand for this.

[ord33]

I agree with Ron on this, but I'm not going to criticize Rand for supporting a proposal that contains spending caps and a balanced budget amendment.

I forget who I was listening to on Mises.org, but anyway, if I remember correctly he said something like this:

A spending cap in proportion to GDP doesn't amount to much because the GDP can rise dramatically with inflation. So this just leads to more inflation and a country paying off their debts easier by debasing the currency.

That definitely isn't anywhere near a quote, but is the basic interpretation I got from it.

I guess the counter argument to this is if the Balanced Budget Amendment actually passed through the states and became an amendment, then there wouldn't be a deficit. But, with their dropping the super majority vote off the amendment to raise it and have an unbalanced budget it doesn't amount to much in my eyes.

[Johncjackson]

Can anyone tell me or show me where to find:

1. WHAT spending is being cut? Amounts and programs
2. What taxes are changing?

[Brett85]

Perhaps looking at the graph I provided and realizing that:

1. This proposal is an inherent admission that several years of unbalanced budgets are on its way, and some of those opposed to deficits will be mollified with this phony proposal

and

2. Budgets will continue to be unbalanced until taxes are raised to meet the 20% of GDP cap placed on spending

will change your mind on not criticizing Rand for this.

The problem I have with this bill is that the level of spending cuts don't satisfy the requirement of the balanced budget amendment. If the BBA was actually passed and sent to the states to ratify, it would likely take about five years for the amendment to be ratified. That means that Congress would have 5 years to balance the budget. But if Congress only cuts 80 billion a year from a budget that has a deficit of 1.6 trillion, it will take at least 20 years to balance the budget. In order to satisfy the requirements of the BBA, Congress would need to cut at least 300 billion per year. So I disagree with Rand on this one, but I still think he's done a great job overall.

[tsai3904]

Perhaps looking at the graph I provided and realizing that:

1. This proposal is an inherent admission that several years of unbalanced budgets are on its way, and some of those opposed to deficits will be mollified with this phony proposal

and

2. Budgets will continue to be unbalanced until taxes are raised to meet the 20% of GDP cap placed on spending

will change your mind on not criticizing Rand for this.

Rand Paul proposed a 5 year balanced budget without raising taxes. If Republicans can rally around this Cut Cap Balance why do you assume that his budget has no chance.

[RileyE104]

Justin Amash's responses to comments on Facebook:


With all due respect to Dr. Ron Paul, I believe he is wrong on this issue, as does Dr. Rand Paul.


Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and I disagree with Ron Paul on this matter. I will provide you with a point-by-point response to Ron Paul's statement as soon as possible.




Ron Paul did not support the House bill because it raised the debt ceiling.

As he has stated before, he NEVER voted for the spending in the first place, so why should he compromise and vote to raise the debt ceiling?

[Feeding the Abscess]

http://lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski271.html


It seems like they take us all for fools, but as usual it is the genuflecting Congress and the emperor who are fooling themselves. While the United States as a functional value has been calmly downgraded (again!) to a C-minus and Americans rapidly seek alternative home bases, passports, ways of making a living off payroll and out of sight, conservatives recall the "glory days" of 1994 and 1995, and as the strutting feather-headed duo of Eric Cantor and Bob Goodlatte proclaim, it might have been so different, if only.

The crux of the Cantor-Goodlatte position is that, in March 1995, if only the Congress had sent a federal balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, all of their congressional overspending, their lack of personal and institutional principle, their paucity of restraint, their blatant inability to comprehend basic economics, their obsession for power over the less worthy, their obscene vote selling and incessant influence whoring – all of these sins would have been washed away, instantly and permanently.

The whole debate is moot, because it has been demonstrated from the beginning that Congress has never met a law that it couldn’t ignore, modify, or break, starting with the original Constitution.

[AuH20]

Make your move, democrats. It will be interesting to see if embattled democratic senators like McCaskill blink on this.

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/545170/545170,1272461467,4/stock-photo-risk-concept-sign-question-on-bear-trap-51945166.jpg

[headhawg7]

Justin Amash's responses to comments on Facebook:





According to Amash, the bill only cuts $82 billion in fiscal year 2012 from fiscal year 2011 levels. That doesn't sound like a significant cut to me.

You are right. Its not significant.

[ord33]

Rand Paul proposed a 5 year balanced budget without raising taxes. If Republicans can rally around this Cut Cap Balance why do you assume that his budget has no chance.

Because it cuts 4 major departments completely....as in removes them. Do you really think the Senate would vote to get rid of the Department of Education, Energy, Commerce, and HUD all in one piece of legislation? I am all for it, but I think everyone knows it would never happen at this point (not that it shouldn't....it just won't). Think about how people freaked out in Wisconsin over the unions. Can you imagine what it would be like in the streets with the liberals and government workers? I just can't see the Senate voting to let that happen.

[tsai3904]

Because it cuts 4 major departments completely....as in removes them. Do you really think the Senate would vote to get rid of the Department of Education, Energy, Commerce, and HUD all in one piece of legislation? I am all for it, but I think everyone knows it would never happen at this point (not that it shouldn't....it just won't). Think about how people freaked out in Wisconsin over the unions. Can you imagine what it would be like in the streets with the liberals and government workers? I just can't see the Senate voting to let that happen.

How can you believe that Ron Paul will be elected President and at the same time people will want to keep those departments?

[ord33]

How can you believe that Ron Paul will be elected President and at the same time people will want to keep those departments?

That is a good question really. I don't know if I really have a rational answer but I will try:

(1) Personally, I don't see the odds of Ron becoming president as extremely high, although I won't ever give up trying (2) As the debt crisis gets worse people will become more aware of our needs to cut spending and see these programs as non-essential. I think they are things people may come around to, but unfortunately not the population as a majority currently. Although back in the 80's getting rid of the Dept. of Educ. was on the Republican platform, so it wasn't too long ago. (3) More of a transition with one department completely removed at a time might be a more realistic approach to get it done (4) Ron Paul as President could get it done by not funding it and vetoing the budgets that appropriate (sp?) money to the departments? (5) Hope that Ron Paul scales back his talking points on getting rid of all the departments immediately while campaigning and focusing more on other not so "in your face" topics.

I want to see these departments cut as much as anyone here, but I was referring to the odds of getting both the House and Senate to approve of Rand's 5 year budget plan as is (or with minor variations). As much as I hate to say it, I don't think the votes are there right now. Or would face an Obama veto. Maybe it will take not increasing the debt limit for people to get down to business and it will open people's eyes. I have no idea.

My opinion is based more on a lack of faith in the population in General and the vast majority of Congress, not in the ideas of Ron or Rand.

[headhawg7]

That is a good question really. I don't know if I really have a rational answer but I will try:

(1) Personally, I don't see the odds of Ron becoming president as extremely high, although I won't ever give up trying (2) As the debt crisis gets worse people will become more aware of our needs to cut spending and see these programs as non-essential. I think they are things people may come around to, but unfortunately not the population as a majority currently. Although back in the 80's getting rid of the Dept. of Educ. was on the Republican platform, so it wasn't too long ago. (3) More of a transition with one department completely removed at a time might be a more realistic approach to get it done (4) Ron Paul as President could get it done by not funding it and vetoing the budgets that appropriate (sp?) money to the departments? (5) Hope that Ron Paul scales back his talking points on getting rid of all the departments immediately while campaigning and focusing more on other not so "in your face" topics.

I want to see these departments cut as much as anyone here, but I was referring to the odds of getting both the House and Senate to approve of Rand's 5 year budget plan as is (or with minor variations). As much as I hate to say it, I don't think the votes are there right now. Or would face an Obama veto. Maybe it will take not increasing the debt limit for people to get down to business and it will open people's eyes. I have no idea.

My opinion is based more on a lack of faith in the population in General and the vast majority of Congress, not in the ideas of Ron or Rand.

I know exactly what you mean. You....like me are a realist. We know what needs to happen but have been around long enough to know that politicians generally speaking will do whats in their best interest(re-election).

They are either going to make the tough decisions very shortly OR the market is going to make the decisions for them. If the market is forced to make the decisions it will be brutal and we will have virtually no control. At least right now I believe we still have the ability to determine our own fate.

The republicans need to wake up and realize that NOW is the time. For every cut you propose and whether or not it comes to pass the democrats and obama will spend double the cuts if the cuts even happen at all if the debt ceiling is raised. The economy will still be stagnant....with minimal growth and high unemployment. The so-called "mainstream economists" will start the drumbeat back up even more so than in 2008 for more stimulus. Once again it will be for shovel ready infrastructure programs.

So yes...I know exactly what you mean and I feel the same way. We know what needs to happen but we also know what is probably going to happen. The politicians will sell out for political expediency. I hope I am dead wrong. I will continue to do everything within my power to spread the word and help donate to ron paul's campaign but there is only so much one person can do.

[jmdrake]

Let's see. Ron stands up for principle and gets political points by being the only candidate to truly stand up against raising the debt ceiling. Rand and Amash get to actually influence legislation that's going to get passed anyway to at least make some kind of cuts and possibly threaten an Obama veto. If Obama vetos he can't blame the debt ceiling impasse on the GOP. If he doesn't then he will be severely restrained on spending money going forward. Sounds like a win/win to me. Am I missing something?

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Let's see. Ron stands up for principle and gets political points by being the only candidate to truly stand up against raising the debt ceiling. Rand and Amash get to actually influence legislation that's going to get passed anyway to at least make some kind of cuts and possibly threaten an Obama veto. If Obama vetos he can't blame the debt ceiling impasse on the GOP. If he doesn't then he will be severely restrained on spending money going forward. Sounds like a win/win to me. Am I missing something?
Interesting perspective.

[AuH20]

Let's see. Ron stands up for principle and gets political points by being the only candidate to truly stand up against raising the debt ceiling. Rand and Amash get to actually influence legislation that's going to get passed anyway to at least make some kind of cuts and possibly threaten an Obama veto. If Obama vetos he can't blame the debt ceiling impasse on the GOP. If he doesn't then he will be severely restrained on spending money going forward. Sounds like a win/win to me. Am I missing something?

Rand isn't afraid to hit singles and doubles, while Ron is the consummate slugger. I respect both stances.

[swiftfoxmark2]

I love how everyone assumes that these promised future spending cuts will actually happen. Once the debt ceiling is raised, there is no guarantee of anything really. Seriously, since when have Republicans and Democrats ever given a flying rat's ass about the Constitution? They care more about their own policies and procedures within their respective Houses of Congress more than the law of the land.

Even if the debt ceiling isn't raised, who is to say that Obama or Congressional leaders will pay heed to it?

[Romulus]

Rand isn't afraid to hit singles and doubles, while Ron is the consummate slugger. I respect both stances.

Right... I like to think this is Rand's version of chess going on here - especially since he coined 'cut cap and balance' - its a win for him. And Obomber veto's it, then he can't blame the R's. Rand is a lot smarter than we might give him credit for.

[angrydragon]

How did Bachmann vote? Ron could do a new ad, or would the old one still work?

[Anti Federalist]

Guy who has fought government spending and expansion of the state for over 30 years, day after day after day, opposes a pathetic piece of DC speak legislation.

Guys who just got in the game criticize him and claim to be right.

Yeah, I know which side I'm on.

Oh, hell yeah!

[HOLLYWOOD]

Funny you mention LOSER... more Queen Sheila Jackson Lee for our viewing pleasure. Ron Paul quoted too.

here's the vote breakout on HR 2560: http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/606
http://www.redstate.com/realquiet/2011/07/19/phase-1-complete-pr-knife-fight-between-boehner-and-the-house-vs-reid-mcconnell-in-the-senate/


Phase 1 complete — PR knife fight between Boehner and the House vs. Reid & McConnell in the Senate? (http://www.redstate.com/realquiet/2011/07/19/phase-1-complete-pr-knife-fight-between-boehner-and-the-house-vs-reid-mcconnell-in-the-senate/)
Tuesday, July 19th at 10:40PM EDT

234-190 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44969)
Some money quotes from the house floor:
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D.-Tex.) called it the “tap dance losers’ club” law, describing the no-tax proposal as “breathtakingly arrogant.”

Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Tex.) said both parties are to blame for the massive deficit.
“The reason we don’t cut spending, is one side loves entitlements, and the other side loves war,” Paul said.“Only in this room is it a disaster to balance the budget,” said James Lankford (R.-Okla.). “I don’t think Americans understand how out of touch we have become.”
And the jackpot:
Democrats called the plan “arbitrary,” “radical” and “foolish gimmicks,” making fun of its title and renaming it the “Duck, Dodge and Dismantle” law.
Excuse me??? Duck, Dodge and Dismantle? Is this some joke? Who was the brilliant Democratic staffer who came up with this one? The Democrats condemn themselves with their own words! How ironic. They have been ducking by not offering any plans of their own, dodging tough votes by not presenting any plans, and dismantling our nation’s economy by their incompetence and lack of action.


So phase one is complete, or I hope this is progression of a winning strategy. So what happened? The Gang of Six came out with their plan today with the obvious tactic of diluting the significance of this bill passing the House. It’s the biggest, juiciest, red herring whose purpose is to deflect the attention of the American people from actually looking at the House’s bill and thinking “What’s wrong with this?”, zeroing the eye of scrutiny on Obama and the Democratic party, and letting the poll numbers improve as more people ponder CCB. The MSM has been trying to downplay it as well, saying it doesn’t have a chance of passing the Senate and this was a useless effort (Many articles are out there like this I have to imagine) (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/172317-demint-obama-only-backing-gang-plan-because-gop-on-the-offensive). What puzzles me is Tom Coburn rejoining the Gang of Six and endorsing this plan wholeheartedly after presenting his own good plan the day before. However, note in that article the anxious, flattering, hallelujah reaction of the White House to the Gang of Six bill. The Senate and Obama are desperate to win the PR battle so they don’t have to take the tough votes and use a veto. This (http://www.redstate.com/realquiet/2011/07/15/hitting-obamas-nerve-a-winning-campaign-theme-for-the-gop-presidential-nominee/) was alluded to over the weekend. Folks, the PR battle is now in full swing. Melt those phones in Washington.


This is smelling foul of a coordinated counter-response to CCB and kabuki theater my friends. Erick Erickson is looking more right (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/07/17/why-is-john-boehner-letting-house-republicans-be-mitch-mcconnells-toy/) as this plays along. I am encouraged by Boehner’s remarks (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/172335-house-leaders-see-gang-plan-as-falling-short) to the Gang of Six proposal.


Stick to your guns, House GOP. The next bill you send out? Phase 2. A bill that stretches only 9-12 months and makes the debt ceiling an election year issue followed by a united announcement with taking a stand, saying there will be no more tax increases or debt. The more bills Obama and the Democratic Senate turn down from the House, the more callous and deaf they appear to the American people’s will not to increase taxes or the debt ceiling. Stay on the offense.
Jim DeMint hit a bullseye with his:
DeMint: Obama only backing Gang plan because GOP on the offensive


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/172317-demint-obama-only-backing-gang-plan-because-gop-on-the-offensive Washington DC is full of Buffoons


Rand claimed that this BBA would bring a balanced budget in 7 years.

Size of government/GDP wouldn't be capped at 20% until 2021 (which is a ridiculous proposal in and of itself)

So either the economy is going to grow at 10+% for seven plus years, or taxes would have to be raised.

What a loser of a proposal, I can't believe Rand is actually pushing this crap.

And he thinks Ron is wrong on this? What a failure.

This is why people were pissed at Rand during the campaign: I and many others cannot and will not stand for being squishy and engaging in Washington bullshit politics.