Senator Lee vows to fillibuster debt ceiling

[itshappening]

... unless there is unanimous consent for a balanced budget amendment !

-
SEN. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a founding member of the Senate's Tea Party Caucus, has pledged to filibuster legislation to increase the debt ceiling.

Lee said a filibuster could be averted only if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) reach an agreement to pass a balanced-budget amendment through the Senate.

"I'm against raising the debt ceiling and so I'm resisting it," Lee said after the inaugural meeting of the Senate Tea Party Caucus in the Hart building on Thursday morning.

"The only scenario in which I can imagine not using the filibuster is if the leadership of both parties agree that as a condition of that they would first pass out a balanced-budget amendment."

A senior Senate Republican aide said unless Congress votes to increase the debt limit by $2 trillion next month, Congress may have to vote two more times this year to increase the federal government's authority to borrow.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has also said he will oppose legislation to raise the debt limit unless the Senate first passes a balanced-budget amendment. Passage of the amendment would need support from two-thirds of the Senate.

Such an amendment, which would require the federal government to balance its books annually, would not take effect for several years in order to give states time to ratify the amendment.

Senate aides say they expect a balanced-budget amendment could pass the House. It failed to pass the Senate by a single vote in the past.

Senate GOP aides say a promise from leaders to merely allow a vote on the balanced budget amendment would not be sufficient to win over conservatives such as DeMint and Lee.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1...iling-increase

[low preference guy]

props to Senator Lee!

[sailingaway]

You notice he waited until the day after they finally adjourned the 'first day' of the session, so they can no longer use the nuclear option to change the filibuster rules....

[MRoCkEd]

Best tag team ever?

[RonPaulCult]

For the first time in my life I feel hopeful for the future of this country

[itshappening]

He really is impressing me, he's a bonus IMO

[Liberty_Mike]

Where is Rand on this one??

[low preference guy]

Where is Rand on this one??

i assume he will back Lee.

[TheDriver]

Where is Rand on this one??

The same place DeMint is. "Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has also said he will oppose legislation to raise the debt limit unless the Senate first passes a balanced-budget amendment. Passage of the amendment would need support from two-thirds of the Senate."

[Brian4Liberty]

Go Mike!

[Zippyjuan]

Congress won't pass a balanced budget amendment. It sounds nice but they won't be able to create a balanced budget. (Plus you would have to get 38 states to aprove it- the amendment that is). Just check the math. Try to cut $1.5 trillion from this budget or raise taxes by $1.5 trillion or some combo of both. Political suicide to anybody who puts forth a plan which works at actually achieving it. This is political show- note that it talks about a balanced budget as being many years in to the future. If they are serious about a balanced budget- let us see them submit one. Ain't gonna happen.

(spending is from 2010, revenues from 2009)

Your (government) income to work with:
(if you just raise income taxes to balance your budget you have to more than double them!)

$1.21 trillion - Individual income tax
$949.4 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$339.2 billion - Corporate income tax
$68.9 billion - Excise taxes
$29.1 billion - Customs duties
$26.3 billion - Estate and gift taxes
$47.9 billion - Other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Un...federal_budget

Mandatory spending: $2.009 trillion (-20.1%)

$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts

Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

The "debt ceiling" is a joke too- everytime the government gets close to it, they move it further away.

[UtahApocalypse]

If they don't raise the Debt Ceiling then they will be FORCED to cut spending and budget just like every American does at home. I wish i could just raise my debt ceiling and go buy a new car, but you cant..... and why the hell should the government be able to?

I like the tactic here but disagree with any Yes vote on raising the debt ceiling.

[Slutter McGee]

I like the idea of Senator Lee leading this specific charge more than Rand. The amount of anger spewed by the left and the media will me enourmous with a fillibuster on this specific issue. Lee is in a position "Utah" that he can politically weather the storm easier than others.

It is a good strategy. The big question is will the Democrats get enough Republicans to override the fillibuster.

Slutter McGee

[RonPaulCult]

Congress won't pass a balanced budget amendment. It sounds nice but they won't be able to create a balanced budget. (Plus you would have to get 38 states to aprove it- the amendment that is). Just check the math. Try to cut $1.5 trillion from this budget or raise taxes by $1.5 trillion or some combo of both. Political suicide to anybody who puts forth a plan which works at actually achieving it. This is political show- note that it talks about a balanced budget as being many years in to the future. If they are serious about a balanced budget- let us see them submit one. Ain't gonna happen.

Isn't that the point though? Politicians can't make budget cuts - but they can make a law that will force future politicians to make budget cuts. This is our best shot.

[Zippyjuan]

Postponing hard choices is what got us into this mess. Spend now and get political capital (votes) for supporting a program. Worry about paying for it later. In the past Republicans tried to brand Democrats as "tax and spend liberals" but at least they made an effort to pay for their programs. Spend and cut tax Republicans instead added to the deficit (yes, Democrats added ot the deficit/ debt as well). Unless the Republicans (I don't expcet the Democrats to do it- they didn't while they had the chance) don't do it now (and I don't expect them to either) things will just continue as they are. Just lip service- not truely dealing with the problems today. No- they don't get a pass for kicking it further down the road.

[nobody's_hero]

The state of Georgia's senate just over-ruled the former Governor's veto of a balanced budget amendment for our state.

I will say that while a balanced budget is a good thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that the things in that budget will be worth spending money on.

I'm not quite understanding the bargaining here between raising the debt ceiling and balancing the budget.

I understand that you have to make it appear appetizing or no one will bite, but that's like telling your child, "eat your vegetables and I'll buy you five pounds of candy the next time we go to the store."

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The Republicans control the House. Unlike the past, they can't just blame the democratic majority when they inevitably vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling. So what phony compromise will they pull out to say "hey tea party; we're keeping our promise!"?

[low preference guy]

The Republicans control the House. Unlike the past, they can't just blame the democratic majority when they inevitably vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling. So what phony compromise will they pull out to say "hey tea party; we're keeping our promise!"?

right. i think Mike Lee's proposal will force every house republican to vote against the debt ceiling unless a balanced budget amendment is passed. otherwise, they're toast. voters will ask: why didn't you support Mike Lee's proposal?

[itshappening]

Paul/Lee 2016

[jmdrake]

I like the idea of Senator Lee leading this specific charge more than Rand. The amount of anger spewed by the left and the media will me enourmous with a fillibuster on this specific issue. Lee is in a position "Utah" that he can politically weather the storm easier than others.

It is a good strategy. The big question is will the Democrats get enough Republicans to override the fillibuster.

Slutter McGee

This! Some folks have been expecting Rand to do everything.

[Pericles]

Isn't that the point though? Politicians can't make budget cuts - but they can make a law that will force future politicians to make budget cuts. This is our best shot.

Been there, done that - Gramm Rudman Hollings.

[Anti Federalist]

Been there, done that - Gramm Rudman Hollings.

Bingo.

This "we'll vote to borrow even more if you promise not to spend more" is weak sauce.

And where is Rand on this?

Lee>Rand???

And I don't want to hear about "political strategy", Boobus can't remember what he had for breakfast, he's not going to remember a filibuster on a measure that's gonna end up passing anyway, six years from now.

[low preference guy]

And where is Rand on this?

Lee>Rand???

Come on, let Lee take some heat instead of Rand. Rand will go with it I'm sure, but he is just letting Lee propose it.

[low preference guy]

Been there, done that - Gramm Rudman Hollings.

The wikipedia article deserves to be reproduced.

The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Pub.L. 99-177, title II, December 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1038, 2 U.S.C. § 900) and Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Pub.L. 100-119, title I, Sept. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 754, 2 U.S.C. § 900) (both often known as Gramm-Rudman) were, according to U.S. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, "the first binding constraint imposed on federal spending, and its spending caps have become part of every subsequent U.S. budget. Together with a rapidly growing economy it produced the first balanced federal budget in a quarter of a century."

Senators Ernest Hollings (D-South Carolina), Warren Rudman (R-New Hampshire) and Phil Gramm (R-Texas) were the chief sponsors. The Acts were aimed at cutting the budget deficit, which at the time was the largest in history. They provided for automatic spending cuts (called "sequesters") if the deficit exceeded a set of fixed deficit targets. The House passed the bill 271-154 and the Senate 61-31, and President Ronald Reagan signed the bill on December 12, 1985.[1] On August 12, 1986, Representative Dan Rostenkowski introduced the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act. The Senate passed the bill with two amendments 36-35, and the House approved the Senate's first amendment by voice vote but rejected the second amendment; the Senate receded that amendment by voice vote. President Reagan signed the bill on August 21.[2] The process for determining the amount of the automatic cuts was found unconstitutional in the case of Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) and Congress enacted a reworked version of the law in 1987.[3] Gramm-Rudman failed, however, to prevent large budget deficits. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 supplanted the fixed deficit targets.

Balanced budgets did not actually emerge until the late 1990s when budget surpluses emerged.

[Anti Federalist]

Come on, let Lee take some heat instead of Rand. Rand will go with it I'm sure, but he is just letting Lee propose it.

I don't doubt Rand will vote no, but I would like to see him "get out in front" of this issue more.

[TheDriver]

I'll be glad when someone does filibuster something, so everyone can see what a waste of time it will be. We need the votes, a filibuster is just being a spoiled-baby cause you don't have the votes.

[low preference guy]

I don't doubt Rand will vote no, but I would like to see him "get out in front" of this issue more.

Are you aware the yesterday he proposed to cut all foreign aid including Israel?

Are you aware that today he proposed implementing means testing for Social Security?

I'm personally pleased with that he is doing.

[Slutter McGee]

Bingo.

This "we'll vote to borrow even more if you promise not to spend more" is weak sauce.

And where is Rand on this?

Lee>Rand???

And I don't want to hear about "political strategy", Boobus can't remember what he had for breakfast, he's not going to remember a filibuster on a measure that's gonna end up passing anyway, six years from now.

Rand has already proposed measures to shore up social security and to cut 500 billion dollars including whole government departments. There is nothing wrong with political strategy as long as that strategy doesn't violate ones core principles.

Slutter McGee

[low preference guy]

I'll be glad when someone does filibuster something, so everyone can see what a waste of time it will be. We need the votes, a filibuster is just being a spoiled-baby cause you don't have the votes.

Filibusters can succeed if you have 41 votes. There are more than 41 Republicans in the Senate.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you aware the yesterday he proposed to cut all foreign aid including Israel?

Are you aware that today he proposed implementing means testing for Social Security?

I'm personally pleased with that he is doing.

I was aware of the second, not of the first.

Yay Rand!