Rand Opposes Debt Deal to Add +$7 Trillion to Debt

[Napoleon's Shadow]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul released the following statement of opposition to the debt deal being proposed by the House of Representatives’ leadership today:

“The proposed deals being discussed today by House Republican and Senate Democrat Leaders do not make cuts to our debt. They do not solve our debt problems. They do not balance the budget, ever.



“Proponents of the most recent debt ‘deal’ in the House are saying it will cut $1 trillion over 10 years now, with promises of $2 trillion more cuts from a ‘commission;’ Senate Democrats are proposing $2.7 trillion in largely smoke and mirrors. These plans ‘cut’ from a baseline that, under current law, will add $10 trillion in new debt over 10 years. So in reality these ‘deals’ add at least $7 trillion to the national debt with no end in sight.



“These are not serious proposals, and they will not solve our fiscal problems. The plan proposed today by the House leaders does not meet the core standards of the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge. The Tea Party is willing to negotiate with the President over the specific spending cuts and spending caps, but any proposal must include a balanced budget amendment to ensure we solve our debt problem once and for all.



“The debate needs to be about real spending cuts – not simply reductions in proposed increases. This ‘deal’ talks of cuts, but these ‘cuts’ are from a baseline that plans to spend over $45 trillion over the next 10 years. It is important that the public understand that the ‘deal’ involves allowing spending and debt to increase every year over the next 10 years. I cannot and will not support any deal that does not have as its end goal a balanced budget. Promises and commissions will not satisfy that goal.”

[georgiaboy]

Stick to those guns, Senator Paul!

[Agorism]

[Brett85]

Good for Rand. I just saw Mike Lee on Hardball, and he did the best he could to answer Chris Mathews' ridiculous questions. He did an amazing job considering that Matthews simply talked over him every chance he got and wouldn't allow him to answer a single question.

[jclay2]

Now he is opposed to the debt ceiling hike? I am glad he has caught on the bandwagon, but the initial support of cap cut and balance was very troubling.

[Brett85]

Now he is opposed to the debt ceiling hike? I am glad he has caught on the bandwagon, but the initial support of cap cut and balance was very troubling.

His position has always been that he would oppose any increase in the debt ceiling unless it was attached to a balanced budget amendment.

[Chieppa1]

Can we get a source link? Thanks in advance.

[georgiaboy]

If you haven't been already, I think it's time we all started contacting our reps & Senators to let them know we're supporting their standing firm on this issue, and look forward to a much different outcome than the TARP bailout stain on history.

[Benjam]

What good does a constitutional amendment do if we don't follow the constitution in the first place?

[Feeding the Abscess]

As much as I've loved Rand's actions in the Senate to this point, Cut, Cap, and Balance isn't a serious proposal, either. The Amendment is full of holes, the defense budget is assumed to increase, and here are some other concerns:

First, the issue is not whether any given federal budget is balanced, but whether it is constitutional. When the President, Senators and Representatives are sworn into office, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, which severely limits the scope of the federal government. No reference is made in the balanced budget amendment regarding the constitutionality of the budget items. It will simply legalize what is now unconstitutional as long as they stay within certain financial limits.

Third, the founders gave the "power of the purse" to the legislative branch. The balanced budget amendment will transfer this power to the President, giving the President the power to budget and tax, blurring the separation of powers the founders wisely gave us.

Fifth, Public Law 95-435, which was signed into law by Jimmy Carter, requires a balanced budget. In other words, it is already federal law that the federal budget be balanced – we do not need an amendment to the Constitution. It has been on the books for years. This is just another example of the crooks in Washington simply ignoring the law. Again, the issue is the lack of character and integrity of the bums that supposedly represent us in Washington.

PL 95-435: "Sec. 7. Beginning in fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts."

The Balanced Budget Amendment: "SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year."

Any substantive difference there? What's stopping them from balancing the budget as they are already required?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/carroll-m1.1.1.html

[LibertyEagle]

Do you have a link for Rand's statement? It would make it a lot easier to pass around.

[Anti Federalist]

Do you have a link for Rand's statement? It would make it a lot easier to pass around.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/07/...llion-to-debt/

[Agorism]

Well I don't trust any of them basically.

I see a debt ceiling, and I don't see a reason why we should not use the existing debt ceiling.